PRIVATE BUSINESS

London Local Authorities and Transport for London Bill

Order for Second Reading read. To be read a Second time on Tuesday 22 February.

Oral Answers to Questions

SCOTLAND

The Secretary of State was asked—

Economic Strategy

Alex Salmond: What discussions he has had with the Scottish Executive on future economic strategy in Scotland.

Alistair Darling: I have regular discussions on a range of matters with Scottish Executive Ministers.

Alex Salmond: Has the Secretary of State seen the "Index of Success", published by the Federation of Small Businesses and prepared by Mr. John McLaren, the Labour party's former economic adviser? It shows Scotland as 10th out of 10 of the small countries in the survey, behind Switzerland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Finland, New Zealand, Austria, Denmark and Ireland. With the Tories saying that Scotland is unattractive and the Labour party's former economic adviser saying that we are bottom of the league, what is it about those other countries that makes them so successful—except that they are independent and Scotland is not?

Alistair Darling: As ever, the hon. Gentleman might do better to look at the detail of the report instead of making the usual wide-ranging assertions that do not bear close examination. That survey showed that Scotland has many good and attractive aspects, which is why, with the rest of the United Kingdom, it is enjoying a long period of sustained economic growth and low unemployment.
	One point that the FSB report highlights, and the main factor that is holding Scotland back, is its poor health record. That is why the Scottish Executive is putting substantial sums into health and making the necessary reforms to improve our health. That is important.
	Yesterday, the hon. Gentleman claimed that he could set up some sort of fund to support Scotland from North sea oil.

Alex Salmond: Like Norway.

Alistair Darling: The hon. Gentleman says, "Like Norway," but I am wondering what sort of fund it would be when it would have an annual shortfall of more than £4 billion, even if every single penny of North sea oil revenue were allocated to Scotland, which would be unlikely. [Interruption.] The fact is that the hon. Gentleman's economics do not add up. They did not add up when he was leader previously, and they do not add up now.

Helen Liddell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is strange that those who purport to speak for Scotland spend their time talking it down? Rather, they should recognise the extent to which men and women in both the public and the private sector have succeeded in building a Scotland that can look forward to the future with confidence. Those who talk down Scotland talk down Scotland's people.

Alistair Darling: My right hon. Friend is right. The fact is that nationalist policies failed and were rejected by the electorate on each and every occasion when the hon. Gentleman led his party previously, and they will be rejected when he next leads it into an election. When people look around Scotland they see economic success, more people in work, more businesses, and expansion across the board because of the economic policies that are good not just for Scotland, but for the whole of the United Kingdom.

Peter Duncan: The Secretary of State implores us to look at the detail, but that shows Scotland's relegation to 36th in the world league for competitiveness. Is he proud of that record in government?

Alistair Darling: If the hon. Gentleman looks at all the recent economic surveys of Scotland and the United Kingdom, he will see that they universally recognise Scotland as a good place in which to do business. When he comes to the Dispatch Box and looks over his shoulder to see all of two Conservative Members sitting in the Chamber today, he may want to reflect that part of his problem is the Conservatives' attitude to Scotland. Yesterday morning, his prominent Front-Bench colleague said on the radio:
	"The problem in Scotland has absolutely nothing to do with immigration levels, I'm afraid it has to do with the fact that Scotland is not a very attractive place for people to come and settle."
	Does that not speak volumes about just how out of touch the Conservative party is with Scotland?

Peter Duncan: The simple fact is that Scotland's economy is not attracting or retaining the very best. The figures are indisputable, with gross domestic product growth consistently lagging behind the rest of the UK, at some 7 per cent. since 1995, business start-ups at only three quarters of the UK level, and manufacturing export levels continuing their seeming decline. What more will the Government do to redress that decline, and when will they sit up and take notice?

Alistair Darling: Rather like the hon. Gentleman who speaks for the nationalists, the hon. Gentleman who speaks for the Conservatives is selective in the statistics that he quotes. I notice that he did not actually repudiate what his Front-Bench colleague said yesterday—that the Tories believe that Scotland is not a very attractive place for people to go and live in. What about the fact that we are home to one of the biggest banks in the world? The Royal Bank of Scotland is building brand-new headquarters just outside Edinburgh, and we are home to numerous other financial institutions that are doing well, such as the Halifax Bank of Scotland. Even in manufacturing, where, yes, there have been difficulties because of the difficulties that face the electronics industry worldwide, there are successes to which we can point. The fact is that Scotland is now a very different place from the Scotland of the 1980s and 1990s, when there was record unemployment and a second generation of people were growing up with no work. The other thing that the hon. Gentleman should focus on is that the policies he advocates—£35 billion-worth of public spending cuts, with all the economic instability that would result—would take Scotland back to the past. No wonder the Conservatives are completely out of touch with modern Scotland. On present form, they are likely to remain that way for years to come.

Defence Industry

Bill Tynan: What estimate he has made of the number of jobs in Scotland which are dependent upon the defence industry.

Alistair Darling: The UK defence industry is very significant to the Scottish economy. The most recent figures suggest that an estimated 7,000 jobs in Scotland are directly related to Ministry of Defence equipment contracts, with a further 7,200 civilian personnel employed by the MOD and its agencies. Additionally, significant employment will be created indirectly by MOD activities in certain parts of Scotland.

Bill Tynan: I thank my right hon. Friend for that comprehensive response. Does he accept that defence industry jobs are mostly high-skilled and high-tech, and give wonderful opportunities for apprenticeships for young men and women in Scotland? Has he made any assessment of the number of jobs that would be lost in Scotland if we decided to withdraw from NATO and our peacekeeping facilities around the world?

Alistair Darling: Withdrawing from NATO would not just be bad in terms of the UK's international obligations but—my hon. Friend is right—it would be devastating for the defence industry in Scotland. We know that the nationalists stand for the break-up of the British Army and the Royal Navy.
	To take just one example, as was made clear yesterday, the Government want to proceed with the programme to build two large aircraft carriers. That will create jobs for more than 10,000 people in the United Kingdom—many of them at Govan and Rosyth, the MOD anticipates, provided that those yards come in with good bids. We expect that to be extremely important for Scotland. Withdrawing from NATO would be disastrous. So, too, would be the commitment by the Conservative party to cut £35 billion of public expenditure. That would be bound to cut defence procurement. We do not even have to speculate about that, as it is precisely what happened in the past when the Tories were last around, and allowed the resources available to the MOD to be run down because of their irresponsible economic attitude.

John Thurso: Does the Secretary of State accept that defence jobs are as important for the highlands as they are for the south of Scotland? Recently, there has been much press speculation that the announcement yesterday of a physical integrator contract for the future carrier vessel would be accompanied by announcement of the physical integration site. As that was not the case, will the right hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to assure the House, and my constituents in Nigg, that the criterion used for the selection of that site will be best value, and not, as the press suggested, a fix by the Treasury?

Alistair Darling: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will, I understand, be issuing a written statement in about 20 minutes' time. He will say that we anticipate that, subject to value for money, the carriers could be built at four sites in the UK—Govan, Portsmouth, Tyneside and Rosyth. That will have to be subject to value for money, as the hon. Gentleman will accept. I fully accept that defence jobs are important wherever they are, but the general point is that if we are to safeguard the defence jobs that we need, first, we should remain part of the United Kingdom, because there is no way that such jobs would go to Scotland if the Royal Navy were broken up, as the nationalists advocate. Secondly, it is essential to maintain levels of public investment, yet the Conservatives are on record saying that they want to cut public investment to the tune of £35 billion. If that happens there are bound to be casualties. Among them would be the Army and the Navy—and the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan) has done nothing to refute that this morning.

Gavin Strang: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the announcement of tranche 2 for the Eurofighter Typhoon just before Christmas was a hugely important boost to BAE Systems Avionics in Edinburgh, a provider of high quality jobs? Against that background, it was disappointing that the company announced 190 redundancies. Will my right hon. Friend encourage the Secretary of State for Defence, in his discussions with BAE Systems, to ask the company to minimise those redundancies and ensure that they are voluntary?

Alistair Darling: I share my right hon. Friend's concern about the job losses announced in relation to some restructuring at BAE Systems, and I hope that the company will do everything it can to try to ensure the future employment of everyone concerned. He will also be aware of the fact that the Department of Trade and Industry has asked the Office of Fair Trading to look at the proposed sale of some of that business to an Italian company, but I very much hope that we can do everything possible to maintain those jobs, because they are very high-skilled, and the people who work in the industry have served Scotland and the industry very well.

Gaelic

Alan Reid: What plans he has to support the Gaelic language.

Anne McGuire: Action to support the Gaelic language is primarily the responsibility of Scottish Ministers. However, during his visit to Stornoway yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was delighted to announce the Government's decision to include for the first time Gaelic headings in the new e-passport, which is to be introduced later this year.

Alan Reid: I welcome the Scottish Parliament's Gaelic Language (Scotland) Bill, which will require Scottish public bodies to prepare development plans about how they plan to use the Gaelic language in carrying out their functions. However, Scottish Ministers and the Scottish Parliament have no say over how UK public bodies operate in Scotland. Will the Government ensure that when UK public bodies such as the Department for Work and Pensions, the Home Office and the Ministry of Defence are operating in Scotland, they prepare and implement Gaelic language development plans?

Anne McGuire: The Secretary of State and I are keen to ensure that the Gaelic language is supported by Whitehall and Westminster, and I can advise the House that my right hon. Friend has written to all Departments to highlight the importance of the new Gaelic Language (Scotland) Bill. Of course, the hon. Gentleman is right to suggest that the Bill does not extend statutory responsibilities or obligations for UK public bodies, but the Scotland Office has hosted a constructive meeting between the Scottish Executive and Bord na Gàidhlig, with wide representation from Whitehall Departments, as a preliminary exchange on exactly how the voluntary arrangements might work in the spirit of the new Bill.

George Foulkes: Will my hon. Friend tell the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) that the parts of Scotland where the Gaelic language is spoken are some of the most attractive in the whole of the United Kingdom?

Anne McGuire: The Secretary of State and I can give any hon. Member every assurance that the areas where the Gaelic language is spoken are definitely some of the most beautiful parts of Scotland, and when the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) next visits Scotland, perhaps he might want to come further than the nearest grouse moor.

Wind Farms

Anne McIntosh: What discussions he has had with the First Minister on development of wind farms in Scotland.

Anne McGuire: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has regular discussions with the First Minister. The development of wind farms in Scotland is a devolved responsibility.

Anne McIntosh: However, energy policy is a national and UK responsibility, and how can the Government have a energy policy whose sole commitment to renewable energy seems to be its obsession with wind farms? Does the hon. Lady think that with masses of onshore wind farms, Scotland will be a more attractive or a less attractive place to live?

Anne McGuire: I hate to correct the hon. Lady—no, I love to correct her: her interpretation of the development of renewable energy in Scotland is misleading. Everyone recognises the fact that wind farms are intermediate technology, but they are commercially viable and they are available at the moment. We have a renewables obligation, and until such time as other technologies, such as those that relate to wind, tides and energy crops, come on stream, we must consider how we reduce our emissions and provide clean renewable energy for Scotland. If the hon. Lady needs any reassurance that the greatest creative minds are looking at different ways of doing that, I assure her that—today, in fact—the Environment and Rural Development Committee of the Scottish Parliament is taking evidence from NFU Scotland, which wants dung power to become part of the energy mix in Scotland. In case anyone thinks that that issue is peculiar to Scotland, let me point out that there is already a dung power station in Devon.

Russell Brown: My hon. Friend is aware from discussions that we have had in the past that the development of wind farms in the areas of most scenic beauty is extremely contentious. Does she agree that we need to consider the development of more wave and tidal power, and that much more needs to be spent on research? I honestly think that we have failed, over 20 or 30 years, by being so dependent on gas and oil for far too long.

Anne McGuire: My hon. Friend is correct. There is already significant investment in wave and tidal demonstration projects. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recently visited the demonstration project in Islay, and as the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) will verify, a great deal of work is being put into such pilot projects. The Department of Trade and Industry is providing almost £500 million of funding for such research and development demonstrations. We are aware that we must have an energy mix, and we are doing as much as possible to ensure that when the time comes, we will have a renewable energy policy worthy of the name.

Peter Duncan: Clearly, the Minister knows that it is important to get the energy mix right. So, too, does the Deputy Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning in the Scottish Parliament, who said:
	"does it make sense, at the very time when climate change and the reduction of greenhouse gases have shot up the political agenda, to be planning the elimination of nuclear power?"
	Does the Minister agree with that comment?

Anne McGuire: I think that the Deputy Minister said that there needed to be a mature debate. Most of us in the House—[Interruption.] Perhaps apart from the Conservatives, who want to try to politicise the issue, most of us realise that we must have a mature debate on the energy mix that will take us through the 21st century.

Mark Lazarowicz: One renewable energy project that has received welcome funding from the Department of Trade and Industry is the innovative Pelamis wave project developed by Ocean Power Delivery, which is based in my constituency. Will my hon. Friend examine ways of building on the success of that project to establish a focus for renewable energy in Leith docks, which would allow us to tap into the immense potential for manufacturing jobs in such a growing sector of the economy?

Anne McGuire: I am well aware of the project about which my hon. Friend speaks—perhaps I will discuss the issues with him later. His question encourages us to appreciate not only that we must have renewable energy sources, but that creating such sources will be of benefit to economic development and job numbers in Scotland.

Energy Policy

Pete Wishart: What discussions he has had with the Scottish Executive and Cabinet colleagues on the future of energy policy for Scotland.

Alistair Darling: Ministers and officials keep in regular contact with Scottish Executive and UK Government Departments on a range of developments affecting energy policy.

Pete Wishart: I thank the Secretary of State for that reply. Following on from the last question, the Prime Minister himself has described climate change as perhaps the world's greatest environmental challenge, yet Talisman, the company behind the 1,000 MW Beatrice offshore wind farm planned for the Moray firth, has described transmission charges as the biggest threat to such projects going ahead. Will the Secretary of State explain how transmission charges that are £20 per kW higher in remote areas will help to address the matter, and how they could possibly encourage such developments, which we dramatically require?

Alistair Darling: As ever with the nationalists, one cannot take what they say at face value. I, too, have held discussions with the company behind that proposal, and it has to look into a range of issues, one of which is transmission charges. We are mindful of that, and we made necessary changes to the Energy Act 2004 to ensure that we could help generation in the north of Scotland. I say to the hon. Gentleman, as I have said many times when we have discussed these matters in the House, that it is important for us to have a transmission regime that is reasonable not only for the north of Scotland, but for offshore generation. Although it is by no means certain that such sources will provide a lot of energy in the future, we certainly need to examine the situation if we are to get a proper balance between renewable energy and other forms of energy generation.

Anne Picking: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in the energy policy for Scotland there is a place for all forms of energy, including nuclear power? Security of supply and safety are absolutely fundamental to the provision of energy in Scotland.

Alistair Darling: I agree with my hon. Friend that we need a sensible mix of energy generation to ensure continuity of supply. She will know that Torness power station has many years ahead of it and that decisions must be taken in due course about whether it should be refurbished so that it can continue generating. The hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan) was somewhat critical about this matter a few moments ago, but it was right for the Deputy Minister in the Scottish Executive to draw attention to the fact that we needed a mature debate on how to guarantee our energy supply in the future. That means having a proper mix of energy, which will no doubt include Torness.

EU Structural Funds

Archy Kirkwood: If he will seek to promote the interests of areas in Scotland likely to lose access to EU structural funds when public sector relocations are being planned.

Anne McGuire: No decisions about the relocation of Government Departments away from Whitehall have yet been made. They will be based on Departments' operational needs and individual business cases rather than the particular needs of specific areas, or geography. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made clear to other Departments the advantages of Scotland as a location, and has encouraged them to consider Scotland when reviewing relocation plans.

Archy Kirkwood: I am grateful for that answer, but does the Minister accept that Scotland is a bona fide locus for the relocation of public sector jobs and that Whitehall Departments should be actively encouraged by the Scotland Office to consider such relocation? In that context, will she bear in mind giving priority in that consideration to areas that might be about to lose European structural funds?

Anne McGuire: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that Scotland is a suitable relocation site for jobs from Whitehall. Obviously, all the issues that he has raised will be taken into consideration. It is worth mentioning, though, that it would help people to see Scotland as a suitable site for relocation if members of the Conservative party stopped saying that Scotland was an unacceptable place to live.

ADVOCATE-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND

The Advocate-General was asked—

Devolution/Human Rights

Annabelle Ewing: What devolution issues have been raised with her since 11 January.

Anne McIntosh: What devolution issues she has considered since 11 January.

Alan Reid: What devolution issues she has dealt with since 11 January.

Tam Dalyell: What human rights issues she has considered since 11 January.

Lynda Clark: Since 11 January 2005, 55 devolution cases have been intimated to me, all of which have raised human rights issues. All of the 45 civil cases intimated to me concern prison conditions. Of the 10 cases relating to criminal law, eight related to pre-trial delay, one to delay in hearing an appeal and one to the detention and questioning of a 14-year-old boy.

Annabelle Ewing: I thank the Advocate-General for her answer. Is Lord Fraser correct when he says that the Inquiries Bill will allow him to secure the release of tapes of "The Gathering Place", and will that be enthusiastically supported by all Labour Members, from the First Minister upwards?

Lynda Clark: I have every respect for Lord Fraser; he is of course entitled to his interpretation. His inquiry predates the Bill to which the hon. Lady refers. Therefore, I do not think that I can further assist her.

Anne McIntosh: The hon. and learned Lady has had cause to consider a number of cases in relation to pre-trial delay. What is the current delay, and is the 110-day rule still applicable?

Lynda Clark: As the hon. Lady knows, the 110-day rule has been altered by statute to some extent, to change the way in which the dates run. Generally, the person concerned is not in custody in pre-trial delay cases. The 110-day rule relates to people who are in custody. People who are charged with summary offences or who have been released on bail are not covered by the rule. In some cases intimated to me as devolution issues the delay between the charge and the trial, when the person has not been in custody, has been substantial. Those are some of the cases on which challenges have been made.

Alan Reid: In response to my question at the last Advocate-General's Question Time, the hon. and learned Lady told the House that she had intervened in only one or two of the cases notified to her. As she is soon to depart voluntarily, will she advise the House whether there is enough work in her office to justify a full-time ministerial salary?

Lynda Clark: There is some slight confusion; I was talking about one or two of the types of case raised. I have intervened and appeared in a number of cases. I do not have the figures to hand, but I have appeared personally in the highest courts in at least 10 different cases. I have also intervened through counsel in a number of other cases; I can give the hon. Gentleman the specific numbers. Devolution issues are only a very small part of my work. My work is advisory. For example, as I tried to explain to the Scottish Affairs Committee, most of my time is spent dealing with advisory matters that—unfortunately, from the point of view of Members—are regarded as confidential. Nevertheless, such work is a very important part of the role of Advocate-General. I hope and think that it will remain a very important role. Of course I have a range of other roles, and I refer the hon. Gentleman to the Select Committee evidence.

Tam Dalyell: May I take the opportunity to thank my hon. and learned Friend for much of the unsung work that we know she has done behind the scenes? Also, may I take what is probably my last parliamentary opportunity to register the belief that languishing in Barlinnie is a man who may have been a sanctions buster, but who almost certainly was not a mass murderer? Before she leaves office, will the Advocate-General reflect on the extremely unsatisfactory division between Foreign Office responsibilities, on which I had a recent Adjournment debate, and the responsibilities of the Crown Office, where, to be frank, Westminster MPs are told to keep out?

Lynda Clark: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for singing my praise. I am sure that his will be sung in many quarters for having made such an enormous contribution to the work of Parliament.
	I know that my hon. Friend has been concerned about the division of responsibilities. Perhaps I can assist him by drawing his attention to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, an independent body charged with reviewing alleged miscarriages of justice in Scotland. It might be able to examine some of the issues that cause him concern.

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State was asked—

Magistrates

Richard Ottaway: What measures he is taking to retain magistrates.

Christopher Leslie: The implementation stage of the magistrates national recruitment strategy will be launched shortly, building on an extensive programme of research and the testing of advertising approaches in the first year. My Department is analysing the healthy 1,949 returns that we received from the recent magistrates questionnaire to see which factors best influence both recruitment and retention. We hope to announce further measures in due course.

Richard Ottaway: Yet after eight years of Labour Government, we still have a problem. A national recruitment strategy, Operation Black Vote, and hotlines have all been tried, yet we have a shortage of magistrates. The Minister has rejected allowances—wrongly, in my view. Magistrates deal with 90 per cent. of the crime in this country. Does he recognise that he will have to do more if he is to turn the problem around and provide a proper strategy for an important part of our community?

Christopher Leslie: I agree to some extent. We do need to encourage employers to adopt a more supportive attitude to having magistrates in their employ. We should also consider sitting patterns, to see whether they are flexible enough to allow people to become magistrates. As for paying magistrates, a broad estimate is that that would involve about £100 million of expenditure. Given that the shadow Cabinet is proposing to cut £155 million from the Court Service, the prospects for proper recognition of magistrates by a Conservative Administration are pretty woeful.

David Lepper: The Minister will have been told by our right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor, who visited the Brighton and Hove area a couple of weeks ago, of the desire of magistrates on the bench there to be able to retain some of the older magistrates who, despite having reached the upper age limit, still have valuable service to offer. Will he comment on that, and on what steps can be taken to help the Brighton and Hove bench to recruit younger magistrates as well, as it already has done to some extent?

Christopher Leslie: We need to recruit magistrates from all age groups, so long as they can demonstrate that they have the necessary maturity, judgment and strength of character to undertake that judicial function. We are considering various ideas—my hon. Friend mentioned a couple—that have emerged from the mass questionnaire. That has galvanised quite a lot of support in the magistrates community, and we are analysing the returns now. I hope that some of the suggestions made will result in innovative approaches.

Oliver Heald: Given that the number of magistrates rose substantially under the Conservatives, has fallen substantially under Labour and is now described by the Lord Chancellor as a sore issue, what has been the single most important measure that the Lord Chancellor has taken to retain magistrates, and why has it failed?

Christopher Leslie: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman should exaggerate; the figures are not quite as bad as he suggests. [Interruption.] As I hear said from the Benches behind me, crime doubled when the Conservatives were in power, and we are working hard to reduce crime and continue the good record that we have. We have made changes, such as beginning to advertise in different ways to potential magistrates the benefits of their applying to join the bench, which has been a major step forward, and other changes are coming. Asking magistrates themselves what helps to keep them on the bench and what would recruit others is probably the best approach. That is what we have done, and we will learn lessons from talking to them directly.

Domestic Violence

Julie Morgan: If he will make a statement on the availability of legal aid in domestic violence cases.

David Lammy: Domestic violence proceedings are a priority area for legal aid funding. That is reflected in the Legal Services Commission's funding code criteria, which now allow domestic violence cases to be funded very widely.

Julie Morgan: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that in Cardiff three years ago more than 50 per cent. of known victims of domestic violence refused to make a complaint? Last year, the figure was down to 14 per cent. Does he agree that that shows an increased confidence in the judicial system, and that it is also the result of good inter-agency working? With that big increase in women taking cases to court, can he reassure me that enough legal aid will be provided?

David Lammy: I know that my hon. Friend has continued to take up these issues not only in her constituency, but nationally. I am pleased that we have been able to put victims of domestic violence at the heart of the criminal justice system with the new Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004. We have seen a steady increase from 2001, when we were spending about £44 million in this area of law, to the last financial year, in which the amount was £56 million.

Jonathan Djanogly: According to the Law Society, managing legal aid expenditure as a single budget has meant that overspends on criminal legal aid have been met by cutting civil legal aid, while poor forecasting of demands on the criminal legal aid budget has led to erosion of the civil legal aid budget. That is an ongoing problem. Do the Government now intend to get a grip on this failure of management?

David Lammy: What the Government are not doing is what the Opposition propose in the James review—scrapping community legal service partnerships and the money going to our citizens advice bureaux and law centres. We are not doing that, but we are sitting down with the professions in a fundamental legal aid review. We are sitting down with the Crown Prosecution Service and looking at processes in our criminal justice system to ensure that they are not driving up costs. As we are proud on this side of the House of the advice that people get in our local communities, and particularly our civil legal aid, we are going to protect it.

Magistrates/Police/Community Liaison

Graham Allen: If he will bring forward proposals to improve the contact between magistrates and the police and communities they serve; and if he will make a statement.

Christopher Leslie: It is the Government's view that the criminal justice system can be better connected with the wider community without adversely jeopardising the integrity of law enforcement or judicial independence. Early returns of the recent questionnaire sent to all magistrates suggest that they, too, are keen to see a greater dialogue with neighbourhood groups, local schools and the local media in order to broaden the understanding of key community concerns.

Graham Allen: What on earth is the National Criminal Justice Board doing about all this? People tell me—I do not believe them—that it is a bunch of lawyers talking about esoteric points of law. Will my hon. Friend ensure that the board understands that the criminal justice system belongs to the people whom it is meant to serve, not to a few professionals? Will he ensure that, rather than the odd public meeting here and there, there is a systematic effort by the board to ensure that every tenants association, neighbourhood watch scheme and community is intimately involved in the development of the criminal justice system and understands it?

Christopher Leslie: My hon. Friend is right that the law does not belong to lawyers. Occasionally, we need to bring together officials from the Crown Prosecution Service, the courts administration, including the judiciary, the police, the probation service and the Prison Service to allow them to iron out the differences between their departments and work smoothly together as a team. I hope that those partnerships will mean better local engagement with neighbourhood organisations and tenants associations such as neighbourhood watch, and I know that local criminal justice boards intend to do that as soon as possible.

David Heath: The proximity of courts to police stations, custody suites and the community is important. I have just received a draft business plan from Her Majesty's Court Service Avon and Somerset, which, unsurprisingly, has a purpose, a vision and an aim. Part of its purpose is to focus on the public; part of its vision is an empowered local service; and part of its aim is being local and accountable. Rather disappointingly, however, it proposes to resurrect the dreary plans to close courthouses in Frome and Wells. When will local accountability mean keeping local courts open?

Christopher Leslie: Far fewer courthouses have closed in the past year than under previous Administrations. Given that there are so many courthouses, however, from time to time local magistrates committees recommend amalgamations, or consolidation of buildings. From this April, the new unification of the courts administration will provide opportunities to set up new magistrates facilities, perhaps in towns that have a civil court only—there are swings and roundabouts. I will re-examine the programme in Somerset highlighted by the hon. Gentleman and form a view.

Hugh Bayley: Does the Minister agree that civil action is sometimes an effective way in which to deal with antisocial behaviour? Are county courts encouraged to help local crime prevention partnerships in the same way as magistrates courts by, for instance, fast-tracking cases to evict antisocial tenants who allow people to deal drugs on their premises? Such civil action is often more effective than criminal proceedings in promptly removing a problem from a problem estate.

Christopher Leslie: We must ensure that our civil and criminal courts work together more closely, particularly on antisocial behaviour. Local residents find it baffling if technical obstacles in the courts system make them feel that proceedings are moving too slowly. We have set up a series of new antisocial behaviour response courts, which include properly trained legal advisers and better specialist prosecutors to allow us to proceed more speedily with antisocial behaviour cases.

New Courthouse (Colchester)

Bob Russell: On what date he expects a full planning application to be made for a new courthouse in Colchester; when he expects construction to commence; and what the scheduled opening date is.

Christopher Leslie: Unfortunately, I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the specific construction schedule, because my Department is still finalising our investment plans for the Essex courts scheme.

Bob Russell: The Minister knows that I have raised the question of Colchester courthouse on numerous occasions. As I have pointed out previously, we have waited for a decision for longer than the duration of the second world war. May I put a deal to the Minister? If he will promise to announce a commencement date within six months, I will promise not to ask any more questions for six months.

Christopher Leslie: I enjoy the hon. Gentleman's questions so much that it is tempting not to give him a date so that we can continue this dialogue. I understand his tenacious attempt to secure early completion, but lots of other schemes across the rest of the country are also priorities. The pot of money is finite, and I am trying my best to ensure that we get a good spread of new build and refurbished magistrates courts as soon as possible.

Magistrates Courts (West Midlands)

Jim Cunningham: How many magistrates courts there are in the west midlands region.

Christopher Leslie: There are currently 12 magistrates courts within the west midlands magistrates courts committee area.

Jim Cunningham: What training is given to magistrates to deal with cases such as domestic violence and child abuse?

Christopher Leslie: The independent judicial studies board is responsible for training the judiciary. It also helps magistrate courts committees to give extra training sessions to local magistrates through the local bench. From April, that system will change, but the judicial studies board will undertake some of the training, funded by the taxpayer. I will try to give my hon. Friend some more information about the specifics of domestic violence case training, which is obviously a priority for all hon. Members.

Freedom of Information Act

Norman Baker: What mechanism is in place to review the operation of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

David Lammy: Comprehensive arrangements are in place across central Government to monitor the operation of the Act. The Department for Constitutional Affairs will receive quarterly returns from Departments on a range of information, including numbers of requests and the timeliness of responses. The first set of data will be published in June.

Norman Baker: Does the Minister agree that Departments seem to be significantly ill prepared to deal with the volume of requests coming in, despite the fact that they have had five years to prepare for the implementation of the Act? Has he seen the front page of The Independent and other newspaper stories that suggest that very few of the requests submitted are resulting in any information being released at all? Would he think about renaming the Act the "Creative Excuses for not Releasing Information Act"?

David Lammy: I have answered a number of questions on freedom of information at this Dispatch Box. There have been questions about shredding, but that was not happening, and questions about a lack of training and workshops, but that was not the case, because the Minister was going around all Departments, and around the country, informing people about freedom of information. This is about the public getting access to important information about the public services that they use. There have been more than 4,500 requests, many of which have led to that information being given within 20 days. The Act is working, and working well.

Legal Aid

David Kidney: What changes he plans to make to legal aid as a result of his fundamental review of legal aid.

David Lammy: The fundamental legal aid review will report to Ministers in the first part of this year on reforms to place legal aid on a sustainable footing in the longer term and to target resources better to deliver the right outcomes for the right people. Ministers will then consider its recommendations.

David Kidney: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Can he give an assurance that as he attempts to design a modern system of legal aid that guarantees access to justice for all who need it, whether for criminal or civil cases, he will maintain a consistent and substantial budget for legal aid, and will not embark on a Tory model of cuts in budgets?

David Lammy: Since the publication of the James review, there has been a huge dividing line on legal aid. The Government are committed to legal aid and are spending more on it than any other developed country in the world, but we want to ensure that that money is going to the people who need it, that we have frank and honest discussions, particularly with the professions, about how we spend those funds, and that processes, particularly criminal justice processes, are not driving up costs. The Conservatives are committed to taking money away from citizens advice bureaux and law centres; that is something that the Government stand against.

Simon Hughes: What assessment he has made of the implications of the Access to Justice Act 1999 for civil justice in England and Wales.

David Lammy: The 1999 Act covered a number of areas of civil and criminal justice. Its main provisions established the community legal service and the criminal defence service, and extended conditional fee agreements. The Department conducted an independent review from September 2003 on the operation of the CLS to assess the impact of the delivery of an efficient and effective service on those who most need it.

Simon Hughes: Last year's Government figures showed that the number of people who have had civil legal aid has dropped by more than half over the past 15 years. Has the Minister's Department now decided on the value of equity in a person's home that should preclude their getting legal aid? The Department said last autumn that it would announce that. Has it decided? It matters to huge numbers of people around the country.

David Lammy: We will publish the results of that consultation shortly. I have been engaged in a range of meetings, particularly with the legal aid community, the Bar Council and the Law Society. The hon. Gentleman should remember that the Access to Justice Act 1999 took out of scope personal injury litigation, which means that there has been some reduction. We are committed to ensuring the appropriate levels of funding for civil legal aid, but we must also ensure that the money is being well spent against a budget that is now £2 billion, beyond which we cannot go. However, I shall publish the results of the consultation shortly.

Legal Profession (Regulation)

David Taylor: If he will make a statement on the regulation of the legal profession.

David Lammy: The current regulatory framework for the legal profession is largely based on self-regulation, with the professional bodies—the largest are the Law Society and the Bar Council—combining regulatory and representative functions. The Government commissioned the Sir David Clementi review and are considering his proposals in detail.

David Taylor: I am a member of the Magistrates Association and when the Lord Chancellor gave an excellent address to our annual conference last autumn, he said that magistrates should be considered as part of the legal profession, and that they should be effective in their operations, connected to their communities and respected for their decisions. If that is so, why was my first-rate former bench colleague, Councillor Mrs. Adoline Smith, who frankly expressed her views on the sentencing options for burglary, asked to stand down from the bench? Is not that over-regulation which has deprived the people of Leicestershire of an excellent magistrate?

David Lammy: It would be quite wrong of me to comment on an individual case. We have conducted the Sir David Clementi review so that we can have that frank and open discussion and ensure that we have the legal community that the country needs and deserves in the 21st century. I held a meeting with stakeholders about the issue last week and I will ensure that magistrates are part of those discussions as we go forward.

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, was asked—

Child Care Facilities

Julie Morgan: What plans the Commission has to provide child care facilities in the House.

Archy Kirkwood: As I am sure the hon. Lady knows, a study was conducted in 2002 on the feasibility of providing child care facilities for staff of the House, Members and Members' staff. Following the review of the report's recommendations, the value of the child care voucher was raised, the scheme was extended to cover all qualifying children in families, and eligibility was extended to cover Members' staff. I am sure that the hon. Lady also knows that we are providing babycare room facilities in the main building and baby changing facilities in the Palace and Portcullis House.

Julie Morgan: I agree that some progress has been made in recognising the child care needs of Members and staff in the House, especially through the expansion of the child care vouchers and the Westminster holiday play scheme, which staff and Members use. However, does not the hon. Gentleman agree that it is high time we had a nursery here to serve both Houses and enable Members and staff to do their work more effectively? Will he reconsider the matter?

Archy Kirkwood: The hon. Lady has ploughed an assiduous furrow on the matter and I welcome her interest. My fellow Commissioners will always be alive to the need to make this place a more family-friendly workplace. However, the evidence has not changed since the review was undertaken in 2002: the vast majority of people would like to provide care for their children at home rather than bring them to this place. It is right to bear the aspiration in mind—we want to set an example for other workplaces. The balance of advantage is currently in favour of extending the voucher scheme, but we will continue to keep the matter under review and if the next Parliament has a new intake of lady Members who are as assiduous as the hon. Lady, we might reconsider it early in that Parliament.

John Bercow: Surely a proper nursery or crêche facility in the House is more than an aspiration to bear in mind. Is it not absurd in this day and age that the House of Commons takes pride in the existence of the Shooting Gallery but is unwilling to contemplate providing a facility that would be widely used and enjoyed? The matter will be raised over and over again, eloquently by the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) and others, and with monotonous regularity, to the point when the House of Commons Commission will probably decide that it is best to give up the unequal struggle and simply provide the facility.

Archy Kirkwood: I understand that point perfectly, but it might interest the House to learn that up to 150 members of staff take advantage of the voucher scheme. That is a much bigger number of people. They are getting more modest benefits, but those benefits are appropriate to their needs. Some Members' staff in their constituencies are also taking advantage of the scheme, which is something that we shall want to promote in future. This is not simply an either/or; there will always be a tension between offering provision for the few and offering provision for the many, and we must keep the issue in mind while trying to develop the voucher scheme, which provides greater benefit for more people.

LEADER OF THE HOUSE

The Leader of the House was asked—

Sub Judice Resolution

Sally Keeble: What input he has had to the Procedure Committee inquiry into the operation of the House's sub judice resolution.

Phil Woolas: Following representations from my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) last July, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House asked the Procedure Committee whether it would look at the application of the sub judice resolution in respect of coroners' courts and advise on whether there should be some extension of the discretion allowed to the Chair. He welcomes the Committee's inquiry, and looks forward to its findings with interest.

Sally Keeble: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Would he be prepared to give evidence to the Committee himself, particularly in regard to coroners' courts, where no one is on trial and there is usually no jury? It would be quite wrong, when no one's right to a fair trial is being infringed, for the sub judice rule to prevent MPs from asking questions about matters of acute general public concern.

Phil Woolas: I congratulate my hon. Friend on her campaign on this issue, which is important to her constituents and to those of other Members. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will look carefully at her request regarding the Procedure Committee's inquiry. It is true that coroners' courts do not determine the guilt or innocence of individuals, but they do reach important findings, and there is perhaps a risk of prejudicing their proceedings through statements being made in the House. I am sure that the Procedure Committee will note what my hon. Friend has said, and that it will pay careful heed to the evidence that she has given.

Nicholas Winterton: Is the Deputy Leader of the House aware that the Procedure Committee, which I chair, is currently undertaking an inquiry into the sub judice rule and into matters relating to coroners' courts? The Committee plans to make its report to the House before Easter. May I also say to the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) that there is still time for right hon. and hon. Members to submit evidence directly to me or to the Committee Clerk and, if necessary, to request to give oral evidence in person?

Phil Woolas: I am sure that the whole House is grateful to the Committee Chairman for those remarks and for the inquiry that his Committee is undertaking. These are important matters because, when a coroner's inquest is adjourned, members of the public— and Members of Parliament, through the House's resolutions on sub judice—are debarred from commenting on its proceedings. That is the difficult situation on which the Committee is being asked to make recommendations.

Paul Tyler: I welcome the current review, but is the Minister aware that much of this discussion took place in the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege back in 1999? Its report made a number of recommendations, including one that the two Houses of Parliament should bring the same rules into force, because there is an anomaly in regard to the way in which the sub judice rule is dealt with in each House. Does the Minister also recall the Committee's strong recommendation that
	"No action should be taken to limit freedom of speech in Parliament in respect of
	(a) matters subject to a court injunction imposing confidentiality; or
	(b) breaches of the Official Secrets Acts."?
	Is he satisfied that the current review will be able to take those recommendations forward?

Phil Woolas: I am aware of that report by the Joint Committee. Indeed, when my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House referred the request from my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North to the Procedure Committee, along with a request from the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, that request was copied to the Procedure Committee in the House of Lords, because of the important questions that it raises. For the two Houses not to act in tandem would create further complications and, perhaps, further injustice.

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, was asked—

Youth Parliament

David Stewart: What plans he has for the Youth Parliament to sit in the House of Commons Chamber.

Archy Kirkwood: In its report on connecting Parliament with the public, the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons suggested that the United Kingdom Youth Parliament should be able to meet and debate occasionally in the Chamber when Parliament is not sitting. However, my hon. Friend—if I may call him that—will be aware that there is a long-standing convention in the House that Mr. Speaker shall have exclusive jurisdiction over the use of the Chamber.

David Stewart: Has the hon. Gentleman read the poll in today's edition of The Herald, which shows that 80 per cent. of young people aged between 16 and 20 surveyed are very interested in the politics of crime and punishment? Does he not think that that would be an excellent debate for the Youth Parliament to have in this very Chamber?

Archy Kirkwood: I am aware, as is the Commission, of the need to try to engage greater interest among that age group in particular, and we are also aware of the valuable work of the United Kingdom Youth Parliament. The hon. Gentleman might not know that Committee Room 10 is already used very effectively by the education unit, and it is on a much more sensible scale for the number of youngsters often involved. I say to him in the spirit of compromise—although we have to be careful about the practicalities and precedents—that if the representatives of the United Kingdom Youth Parliament want to get in touch with the Commission and the education unit, I am sure that we will be able to promote their interests in a way that is beneficial to both parties.

BILL PRESENTED

Children's Food

Ms Debra Shipley, supported by Vera Baird, Alan Howarth, Geraint Davies, Mr. Andy Reed, Mr. Simon Thomas, Mr. Ernie Ross, Mr. Graham Allen, Mr. Paul Burstow, Mr. Paul Tyler, Angela Eagle and Mr. Robert Walter, presented a Bill to make provision regarding the marketing, promotion and sale of food and drink to and for children; to make provision for education and the dissemination of information about children's diet, nutrition and health; to place certain duties on the Food Standards Agency; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 8 April, and to be printed [Bill 56].

Small Shops (Protection)

Brian Cotter: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require local authorities to develop plans to support small shops; to amend the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to impose additional planning requirements in relation to large shops and shopping centres; to make provision about retail purchasing by local authorities and other public authorities; to amend the Local Government Finance Act 1988 in relation to non-domestic rates for small shops and related business; and for connected purposes.
	Small shops are at the very heart of our local communities, providing vital services to local residents and a wide choice of goods and services. A study produced by the Council for the Protection of Rural England in 1997 highlighted some of the most important functions provided by small shops, which can apply equally to small retailers in urban and rural environments.
	The survey showed that small shops provide a lifeline for those in need, such as the elderly, the young and those without transport, and provide valuable opportunities for human contact. For some people on their own, particularly the elderly, the only conversation they may have all day is with the shop assistant in their local store, so the friendly and intimate experience of shopping in a small outlet is one that they particularly value. Just last week, I met a lady who sees that as a particularly important and satisfying part of her job, as do many such people.
	Small retailers provide a market for local produce and suppliers, thus providing consumers with more choice and recycling money back into the local community, and they also provide important job opportunities in such communities. A report published by the Department of Health at the end of 1999 as part of the Government's neighbourhood renewal strategy summarises the important role that small shops play in poorer or isolated locations:
	"Thriving local shops can provide employment for local residents and a pathway into new schools and training opportunities, can reduce crime and can improve health by providing a range of quality goods including food, at affordable prices."
	The important role that small shops play in our local communities is therefore clear, so it is worrying that recent years have seen a rise in the number of small retailers shutting up shop for good.
	In a 2002 report, "Ghost Town Britain: Death on the High Street", the New Economics Foundation revealed that between 1997 and 2002, specialist stores such as butchers, bakers and fishmongers shut at the rate of 50 per week. Assuming closures have continued at that rate, I would maintain that more than 20,000 specialist shops have closed since Labour came to power.
	An increase in the number of local bank branches and post offices closing has also accelerated the decline of local shopping parades as consumers look elsewhere to access the financial and shopping facilities that they need, often in out-of-town shopping centres. In August, the New Economics Foundation launched its "Clone Town Britain" survey amid fears that Britain was becoming a nation of clone towns, suggesting that "identikit urban environments" and chain stores are squeezing out local identity and individuality.
	To some extent, those changes reflect developments in lifestyles and consumer tastes. Many of us, including me, appreciate the convenience of shopping at a supermarket or shopping centre and of meeting all our needs under one roof. Supermarkets in particular can provide shoppers with access to cheap food and goods, and competition between the major players is therefore of benefit to the consumer in helping to keep prices down. Currently, however, there are concerns about the consolidation of the grocery market by the larger supermarkets and about the operation of the supermarket code of practice, particularly in relation to the treatment of suppliers. That has led the Association of Convenience Stores, Friends of the Earth and others to call for a full market review by the Office of Fair Trading.
	Research conducted on just over 1,000 consumers for the Association of Convenience Stores in October 2004 showed that 63 per cent. thought that the growth of supermarket-owned convenience stores gave consumers less choice about where to shop. Therefore, it seems that while people want the convenience and cheap goods that supermarkets provide, they also want the diversity and friendly service that small local retailers provide. That is why we must act to prevent a further decline in the sector.
	My Bill seeks to address that by requiring local authorities to develop retail plans for their area, as proposed by the New Economics Foundation, building on proposals outlined under the Local Communities Sustainability Bill. That was highlighted in a report on small shops published by the Better Regulation Task Force in July 2001, which said that
	"small retailers continue to have concerns that planning decisions that allow out of town stores to be built do not fully cost and assess the impact on local retailers and employment in the surrounding area."
	Recently, in my constituency, I was approached by small retailers in one parade of shops who were extremely concerned about a planning application that had been submitted to site a supermarket express store in the area. Although those plans were subsequently rejected, it is imperative to ensure that local authorities take sufficient account of concerns raised by small retailers and consumers in reaching their decisions. Without the Bill, that cannot always happen. It is therefore imperative that we encourage local authorities to take a sustainable approach to economic planning and require them to consider both small retailers and consumers in their plans, including the need to ensure social inclusion and diversity in the retail sector. Such plans could be implemented in several ways, but it would ultimately be up to each local area to decide what worked best for it.
	My Bill would also call for local competition policy, again as proposed by the New Economics Foundation. Normally, competition policy is addressed nationally, but it would be applied locally under my Bill. The national predominance of a chain is meaningless in deciding whether a supermarket will drive local shops out of business. Such an application of the law would also empower local communities to make decisions about the future of their areas.
	Under the proposals, local communities would also have the final word in any decision on whether to allow the construction of a large shopping centre exceeding a certain size. My Bill would also implement the recommendation made by the New Economics Foundation to require local authorities to use tools such as those developed by the foundation to track local spending and then favour local retailers whose businesses ultimately leave more money recirculating in the local economy, especially in poor areas.
	Finally, my Bill would also provide rate relief for shops and businesses with a rateable value of less than £25,000. The proposal would be revenue-neutral, with larger businesses required to cover the cost in accordance with an upward scale. Research published by the Department of the Environment in 1995 showed that business rates represented 30 per cent. of the profits on businesses with turnovers of less than £100,000—more than twice the proportion for large businesses. The Government have acknowledged that that is a problem for retailers, and stated in their response to the Better Regulation Task Force report on small shops that
	"small high street shops are sometimes valued at a higher rate per square metre than supermarkets."
	While the Government themselves have recognised the problem, their proposed rate relief scheme, which would provide relief for small firms with a rateable value of less than £10,000, will not do a great deal to address the problem. The Federation of Small Businesses has argued that the threshold is too low. Following the recent revaluation of commercial properties, it warns that many small shopkeepers may experience a considerable increase in their rates. It goes on to say that a shop in the south of England faces an average 29 per cent. increase in its rateable value, which could mean an increase of about £1,800 in the final rates bill.
	My Bill seeks to address the effect of the recent revaluation and the disproportionate burden that business rates place on small shops by increasing the threshold at which rate relief is available for smaller retailers. The measures that I have proposed are essential if we are to ensure that there is no further erosion of Britain's independent retail sector, and I therefore commend the Bill to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Brian Cotter, Malcolm Bruce, Mrs. Annette Brooke, Sue Doughty, Andrew George, Mr. Parmjit Singh Gill, Mr. Mike Hancock, Mr. David Heath, Dr. John Pugh and Sarah Teather.

Small Shops (Protection)

Brian Cotter accordingly presented a Bill to require local authorities to develop plans to support small shops; to amend the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to impose additional planning requirements in relation to large shops and shopping centres; to make provision about retail purchasing by local authorities and other public authorities; to amend the Local Government Finance Act 1988 in relation to non-domestic rates for small shops and related business; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 20 May, and to be printed [Bill 57].

Opposition Day
	 — 
	[4th Allotted Day]

Climate Change and the Environment

Norman Baker: I beg to move,
	That this House endorses the comments of Sir David King that climate change is the most serious threat facing the planet and congratulates him on his work in this area; welcomes the Prime Minister's commitment to make the tackling of climate change a top priority for the United Kingdom's presidencies of the EU and G8 this year; reiterates the UK commitment to a 60 per cent. reduction in carbon emissions by 2050; strongly welcomes the coming into force of the Kyoto agreement on 16th February and the strong role the European Union has played in achieving this; believes that it is vital that, post-Kyoto, the international community works to reach agreement on the action needed to tackle climate change, which should engage the United States but which should also recognise the importance of the energy choices which face many of the major developing countries; calls on the global community to work with them in addressing those choices; rejects the notion that tackling climate change will of necessity damage the economy and indeed suggests that it is failure to do so that will lead to that result; believes that all parties in this House should by their own actions help convince the public of the need to take environmental matters seriously; and therefore condemns Conservative plans severely to weaken the Environment Agency through the massive and debilitating cuts proposed for the Agency by that party, and its damaging plans to abolish the climate change levy.
	It is a great pleasure to introduce a debate on the important subject of climate change just a few days before the Kyoto protocol comes into force on 16 February. It has been a long, hard struggle, and it is right to pay tribute to people from all parties and all countries who have made Kyoto possible, despite the opposition of the United States, Australia and others. It is nearly the anniversary of a debate that the Liberal Democrats introduced in the limited time that we are allowed for Opposition debates. On 10 February 2004, we held a debate on the state of the environment and, as environment spokesman, I said that the environment was not receiving sufficient attention in the House, and that there should be an annual debate on it. We have waited without success for the Government to introduce a debate in the intervening 12 months, so, almost to the day, we are pleased to introduce another. The Liberal Democrats have a limited number of Opposition days, so it would be very welcome if the Government provided time for such debates.
	During this Parliament, we have introduced three substantive debates on the environment in Opposition time. By comparison, there has been only one debate in Government time and the Conservatives have not introduced any at all. They were going to introduce a debate on climate change last year but, at the last moment, it disappeared and was replaced by a debate in which they opposed wind farms. That must be the only example in history where the horse has been pulled up before the runners are off.

Colin Challen: Does the hon. Gentleman recollect that the last time that his party held a debate on this subject not a single Liberal Democrat Back Bencher made a speech? Is there a three-line Whip today?

Norman Baker: No, I do not recall that. There is not a three-line Whip today—there is genuine interest among Liberal Democrats in the environment, as demonstrated by the number of my colleagues who are here today. I hope, incidentally, that subsequent interventions will be directed more towards the important issues that we are debating, instead of being narrow party points.

Paddy Tipping: Perhaps I can help. Does the hon. Gentleman remember the Second Reading of the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Bill—a Bill about the local environment—in which not one Liberal Democrat Back Bencher spoke?

Norman Baker: No, I do not recall that, but I do recall that we, unlike the so-called official Opposition, supported the Government on that occasion.
	I do not want to rehearse at great length the examples that prove that climate change is occurring. We have all seen them in the newspapers and heard them on television and the radio, so there can be no doubt whatever that climate change is occurring or that it is induced by human behaviour. Sir David King, the Government's chief scientific adviser, has done a splendid job in drawing attention to the scientific evidence, which is now accepted by the vast majority of scientific opinion across the world. It is accepted by all parties in the House—I see a Plaid Cymru Member in his place—and I am not aware of any Member who fails to believe that climate change is happening and that it is humanly induced. If there are any such Members, I hope that they will make themselves known today.

Martin Smyth: rose—

Norman Baker: Perhaps we have one.

Martin Smyth: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is growing confusion about the issue? A week or so ago, there was a conference led by an Oxford professor, in which it was agreed that there was global warming. The next day's Metro reported that the increase would be 11o, but the professor subsequently said that it would be only 5o. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that some people are beginning to wonder whether there might be another ice age before we get really burned up?

Norman Baker: I acknowledge that the science is not exact and that there are different projections for the future in respect of the exact level of temperature change. That is bound to be the case, but it is unquestionable that climate change is occurring and that temperatures are increasing. If the gulf stream switches off, that could well lead to downward changes in temperature for this country, but that does not show that climate change is failing to occur—it is occurring.

John Gummer: Has the hon. Gentleman seen the latest scientific assessment of all the papers on climate change by climatologists and other experts, which shows that there is no longer any significant argument about these matters among the scientific community? Indeed, there is hardly a single person who doubts the fundamental fact that the world is warming—and doing so alarmingly quickly.

Norman Baker: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct, and I pay tribute to the work that he did in government in bringing this matter forward and to his subsequent contribution in opposition. It is welcome to have such a knowledgeable voice on the Conservative Benches. He is absolutely right that there is no doubt among the scientific community. That is not to deny that some individuals are advancing the theory that climate change is not occurring. Indeed, I shall consider some of those voices now.
	One voice is that of Julian Morris of the International Policy Network, who claims that climate change is a myth. Apparently, sea levels are not rising and Britain's chief scientist is "an embarrassment" because he believes that catastrophe is inevitable. It is worth pointing to the close links between International Policy Network and Exxon Mobil, which gave the organisation $50,000. Exxon lists that donation as part of its climate change outreach programme. There are also close links with the Washington-based Competitive Enterprise Institute. We may be able to deduce from the comments of Julian Morris that there is an ulterior motive behind his denial of climate change.
	I have already mentioned the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and Members may have heard the outrageous interview with Myron Ebell on the Radio 4 "Today" programme. He criticised Sir David King in hugely personal and outrageous terms and called climate change "a tissue of improbabilities", claiming that the objective was for Europe to "attack America's economic superiority". It is worth pointing out that the Competitive Enterprise Institute is also funded by Exxon Mobil—to the tune of $280,000 in 2001.
	We could also mention Dr. Roger Bate of Tech Central Station. He also criticised Sir David King, who is fast becoming an object of derision for people associated with Exxon Mobil and others. He says that
	"it is especially shameful for the British to attempt limiting debate"—
	apparently that is what we are doing—
	"in a country that had science suppressed far too often in the past."
	I do not think that many hon. Members will recognise that description of this country. The House may be interested to know that Tech Central Station received $95,000 from Exxon Mobil last year for climate change activities.
	I am sure that some people are genuine and well meaning. David Bellamy, the former environmentalist, has denied climate change in the newspapers. I am not sure that we can give much credit to his views, but I think that he is genuine. Tech Central Station, the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the International Policy Network are linked not by a belief that climate change is not happening, but by a need to advance an argument on behalf of those with a vested interest in action not being taken. A plethora of such articles has appeared in the press, supposedly from independent scientists. In fact, they are nothing of the sort: they are being paid by the oil industry to advance some very short-sighted arguments.
	In the oil industry, Shell and BP have shown leadership. They embrace new technology and realise that we must change. There is a big difference between their activities and those of Exxon Mobil, which pretends that it can still keep its head in the sand.

Simon Thomas: I acknowledge that Shell and BP accept the science of climate change and that they have invested in other technologies. However, those two companies have posted huge profits in the past week. That raises the question of why they do not invest significantly more in renewable and energy-saving technologies. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that they could be doing a damn sight more?

Norman Baker: Yes, they could. They have accepted the science and are going in the right direction, as the hon. Gentleman says. I am grateful for his intervention. It might encourage them to go further, as I believe that they should.

Mark Lazarowicz: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a windfall tax on those producers would be a good idea? That money could be invested in renewable energy technologies, as has been suggested.

Norman Baker: I am not necessarily in favour of windfall taxes, but I believe that measures should be put in place to encourage companies to take the right steps. That can be achieved without a windfall tax, not least because it is in companies' economic interest to go down that road.
	I want to speak briefly about media reporting of climate change. I make a particular plea to the producers of the "Today" programme on Radio 4. Can we please stop having artificial debates between those who believe that climate change is happening and the minority who say that they believe that it is not? We should move on from that: we need debates between politicians about how best to deal with the problem. Producers insist on presenting a ludicrous juxtaposition that does not help the argument. I very much hope that they will take what I say on board. We no longer argue about whether smoking causes lung cancer. That is now accepted, and I hope that BBC producers will accept that parallel.
	I congratulate broadsheet newspapers such as The Independent and The Guardian on much of the exposure that they give to climate change and on the way that they raise the issue for readers, but it is not sufficient for their science editors simply to write a finite piece that causes people to think how dreadful things are. Politicians of all parties and countries should be engaged and asked what they are doing about the problem. The newspapers need to make the issue far more political than they have done so far.

Tam Dalyell: It is slightly dangerous to go down the road of suggesting that people whose opinions may be erroneous or unpalatable should not have the right to express them on radio, if it is the presenters' choice that they should do so. I am generally in favour of what the hon. Gentleman is trying to do, but I think that that is dangerous.

Norman Baker: Let me reassure the Father of the House that no one is suggesting that people should be censored, or that the "Today" programme's editorial content should be determined by anyone other than the BBC. However, it is neither sensible nor editorially justifiable to give equal weight to both sides of an argument when the overwhelming scientific consensus is on one side. That consensus is so overwhelming that it should be taken as read. For instance, a person who wanted to say on Radio 4 that lung cancer was not related to smoking would be given short shrift. That is the comparison that I want to make.

Russell Brown: To set the record straight, is the hon. Gentleman saying that we should listen to what is being said, and that programmes should have a mix that includes politicians? Surely he is not saying that other people should be set aside, and that politicians should take control?

Norman Baker: I am certainly not saying that. Programmes should dovetail scientists, politicians and pressure groups. That sort of arrangement applies in most other fields of policy, although it seems that it does not in respect of environment policy.

Simon Hughes: My hon. Friend has praised some elements of the press, and some of them do a very good job, but does he accept that the national media should also report what happens at a local and regional level? For example, one Sunday newspaper carried a very good story about the potential effect of climate change on a very old pub's daub and wattle structure. People realise that climate change affects faraway countries with which we have links, but they will be more likely to accept that they must change their lives and lifestyles if they understand that places in this country can suffer as well.

Norman Baker: I agree, and I should declare an interest: I own a building with wot and dobble—I mean wauble and dot—

Simon Hughes: Wattle and daub.

Norman Baker: With that particular method of construction—[Laughter.] That was how buildings were made many hundreds of years ago. As always, my hon. Friend makes a valuable point.
	I turn now to the comments of Bjorn Lomborg, associate professor of political science at Anglia university. He was the author of a book entitled "Global Crises". I believe that he is well motivated, but in error. If some hon. Members disagree, I can say that I am being generous for the purpose of this debate.
	Lomborg suggests that we should spend the money necessary to tackle global warming on other matters, such as helping developing countries with aid, and so on. I shall describe later how I do not believe that there is a net cost to the prevention of global warming, but I think that Lomborg misses the point. He is worried about developing countries, but they are the ones that suffer most from global warming. They will be hit first by the floods associated with warming, and their populations and lifestyles will absorb the biggest impact.

Peter Ainsworth: Of the money given by the developed world to the developing world for energy projects, less than 3 per cent. is spent on renewable forms of energy. Does not the hon. Gentleman think that that is shocking? Should we not take that huge opportunity to get the latest technology to places where it will make a real difference?

Norman Baker: I absolutely agree. The hon. Gentleman is Chair of the Select Committee on Environmental Audit, and does a splendid job. Moreover, I watched him grill the Prime Minister very effectively this morning in the Liaison Committee.
	All Governments—our own can do this through the Department for International Development and other Departments—need to look at how international development aid is spent. We need to know that the money we give in aid, for good reasons, is not making an environmental problem worse. In the end, developing countries need a secure environment even more than the UK does. It is an own goal to encourage fossil-fuel energy generation, as happens in some places.
	It seems very likely that there will be an increase in global temperature of 2°C by the 2050s. The consequence for the developing world will be that an additional 250 million to 300 million people will be at risk of contracting malaria. Also, 12 million more people will be exposed to hunger as crop production falls, and 20 million more could suffer from coastal flooding. Clearly, that must be tackled. I suggest to Mr. Lomborg that merely giving aid and doing nothing else is like pouring water into a colander: it will not solve the problem.
	Does tackling climate change have a negative economic impact? The Secretary of State will know that one reason given by the US for not engaging in the Kyoto process was the alleged damage to the US economy. Frankly, I think that that damage is somewhat overstated. To be fair to the Government, and their Tory predecessors, this country over the past 15 years has demonstrated an ability to disconnect economic growth from carbon emissions. That is a very important lesson to take out and sell to the Americans and to others who are sceptical about the proposition.

Simon Thomas: It is true that carbon emissions can be decoupled from economic growth, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that the aviation industry is the exception and that the problem that it poses needs to be tackled? Under Kyoto, this country has generally succeeded in decreasing emissions, but the aviation industry and some parts of the transport sector remain problematic. Does he agree that the decoupling that he describes has to happen in those sectors as well?

Norman Baker: I agree, and I shall come to that later, if time allows.
	One of the first things we must do is to end the "predict and provide" policy on airport growth, which the Government seem to have accepted. Secondly, fiscal measures must be introduced to put pressure on airlines for greater efficiency in minimising carbon emissions, which will soar if we do not take action soon.

Lembit �pik: On economic cost, is my hon. Friend aware that a Friends of the Earth report in 1997 predicted that, by 2030, the period between storm surges of the magnitude previously expected once every 100 years will be reduced to 12 years in Holyhead, five years in Cardiff and three and a half years in Milford Haven? The resulting damage will give rise to untold economic costs, and investment now is likely to pay for itself many times over in preventing damage in the first world, let alone the third.

Norman Baker: That is right, and there are two equations. The first is the cost of doing nothing. Those who say, Let's not take action because it would damage the economy, fail to cost in the effects of doing nothing, which are significant. Flood defence work is required in this country, but that is not the only example. Doing nothing will have huge economic costs. Parliamentary answers I have received have suggested that the total cost of damage to the environment in 2004 was 67 billion. Not all of that arose from climate change, but much of it did. That is the cost of doing nothing.

John Gummer: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that another argument is that the United States Department of Energy showed that it could meet its Kyoto targets without harming its economy or changing the lifestyle of its people? The problem is that the targets are not high enough, but it is an absolute lie to suggest that they cannot be met other than by damaging the economy.

Norman Baker: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I note that Spencer Abraham has left the US Department of Energy since that report was issued, and those two facts may not be unconnected.
	The right hon. Gentleman may want to refer to what Bill Clinton said in 1997 when he was President:
	The conversion of fuel to energy use is extremely inefficient and could be made much cleaner with existing technologies or those already on the horizon, in ways that will not weaken the economy but in fact will add to our strength in new businesses and new jobs. If we do this properly, we will not jeopardize our prosperitywe will increase it.
	That is right and those who are concerned about the economic impact of tackling change should realise that it is not damaging, but an opportunity.

Peter Ainsworth: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Has he seen, by any chance, the report sponsored by the World Wildlife Fund, Cry Wolf, which charts the way in which industry has consistently exaggerated the costs of incoming environmental legislation? Is he aware that Digby Jones came before the Environmental Audit Committee recently and could not name a single British company that had left the United Kingdom because of environmental laws?

Norman Baker: The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to that report. I am glad that not all parts of industry are negative. Some are forward-thinking and the work of the Carbon Trust is useful in that connection. For example, BP spent $20 million to implement its energy reduction strategy between 1998 and 2001. It embarked on that for environmental reasons, but released almost $650 million in financial savings in just three years. There is no doubt that such action can be economically as well as environmentally beneficial.

Alan Whitehead: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the most important elements of ensuring that industry does not lose out economically from the business reaction to climate change is the security of forward signals for its future business? In that context, would he comment on the wisdom of abolishing some of those forward signalsfor example, the climate change levy?

Norman Baker: It would be extremely detrimental if the climate change levy were abolished and not replaced with something as or more effectivewe would argue for a carbon tax. Pressure is being applied gently and should be increased, and it would send entirely the wrong signals to industry if that pressure were removed. All political parties should think carefully about manifesto proposals that might send the wrong signals for tackling climate change.
	I could give other examples, but will not do so for the good reason of lack of time. However, there is no shortage of businesses that have taken action on the environment, often because they believe that they should do so for reasons of conscience, and have seen large consequential increases in their productivity and profits.

John Gummer: Does that not lead the hon. Gentleman to be displeased with the Government for going back to the European Union and reneging on their original proposal? They pretended that that had something to do with bureaucracy in the European Union, but the reason was that the CBI was leaning on the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister gave way, as he always does on this matter.

Norman Baker: One of the joys of making speeches on the environment in the presence of hon. Members who are well aware of the facts is that they anticipate my points, although that is sometimes unhelpful to the continuity of my speech.
	I agree that the position on the national allocation plan is unfortunate. The Government have reneged on the original targets and pulled back from them. That sent exactly the wrong message to countries in the EU that have not yet signed up. It is unhelpful if we send out conflicting messages saying that it is a good scheme but that we shall partly renege on it. The Government say that they have more information, which caused them to change their view. How convenient. That might be true, but does not seem convincing on paper.
	I understood that the outcome of the dispute between the European Union and the Government was going to be cleared up this week. However, The Daily Telegraph, which I always read because it is a most reliable newspaperI am sure that hon. Members agree, tongue in cheeksaid today that the European Commission has forced Ministers to delay an announcement yet again until the matter is sorted out. When the Secretary of State or the Minister replies, perhaps they will clarify where we are with a national allocation plan, whether agreement has been reached and, if so, on what basis. If we have reduced our targetthe reason would probably be pressure from uneducated elements of businessit would be unfortunate and unhelpful to the international efforts of the Prime Minister to convince others to treat climate change seriously.
	On the international situation, first, I welcome the fact that the Prime Minister and the Government have made climate change one of the two priorities for our EU and G8 presidencies. That is absolutely right and if we were in government, we would probably have picked the same two priorities. We are pleased that that is the Prime Minister's approach and it is clear that he is giving time to it and that a lot of work is going on behind the scenes with the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and others in difficult negotiating territory. We support them in their negotiations and I hope that we can provide constructive support, as well as constructive criticism in an attempt to be helpful.
	The United States Administration are the predominant problem, but we also need to accept the situation in developing countries, such as China, India and Brazil, whose economies are fast-growing. China has an immensely fast-running economy; it is almost unbelievable how fast it is growing. The result will be an increase in energy consumption, and we have a key role to play in such countries' choice of whether they will base their energy needs on renewable resources, fossil fuel, or nuclear options. If those developing countries ask why they should sort out the mess created by the western world and suffer the brunt of the problem, as they might, we must have a good answer. We must make it clear that we got it wrong in many ways, but that we now have collective responsibility throughout the world to try to sort it out. If we do not sort it out, they will suffer even more than we will.

Richard Ottaway: The hon. Gentleman referred to developing countries, the central feature of which is population growth. The world's population is increasing by around 250,000 a day and the main growth is in India and China, but they are not using modern renewable technologies. Does he acknowledge that population growth is a key factor in climate change?

Norman Baker: All human activity is key in climate change, and population growth is one factor. It is important that as far as possible our international development and other policies encourage sustainable living. Population growth is best tackled by providing security and a decent standard of living in developing countries. That will take pressure off population growth, as we have seen in Europe, where it is much lower than in Africa. The way forward is to take an enlightened approach to those countries.
	I want to touch briefly on the tactics adopted by the Government towards their partners in the EU and the G8. In December, my colleague the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell), the Lib Dem shadow Foreign Secretary, and I wrote to the Foreign Secretary about the tactics to be deployed in negotiations with the United States. I appreciate that the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will not want to lay bare those tactics before the House, but it is important to understand that there are two possible ways to proceed. The first is to assume that the United States genuinely does not believe the science, and to spend much time and effort to persuade the US that the science is there. The alternative is to assume that the US knows the science but pretends not towhich is where I think we areand that it is stalling for time in an effort not to bring in measures that are inevitable. I am frightened that the British Government are spending too much time taking the American position at face value and thus neglecting the opportunity to make more progress. Kyoto will come in next week, in the teeth of US opposition, so it is important that those who have signed up to Kyoto take this opportunity to go forward together. If we go forward together strongly, the US will follow at some point. Furthermore, without causing diplomatic incidents, we should work with individual US statesin the north-east, California and elsewherewhich are actually doing good stuff.

Malcolm Bruce: And Canada and Mexico.

Norman Baker: Indeed. Those states and countries are moving forward on emissions trading and tackling climate change. American business, too, increasingly recognises the opportunities in the world from tackling climate change. That is what is happening from the grassroots up in the US, but it has not yet reached the White House.
	We need to encourage those elements. What we must not do, in any circumstances, is to try to find a halfway house that brings the Americans on board but would involve abandoning key targets to get them to sign a piece of paper that the Prime Minister can wave Chamberlain-style saying, Climate change agreement in our time. We must avoid that at all costs.
	I am worried. Although I believe that the Prime Minister is well intentioned, I am not convinced that he has the diplomatic skills to get the right result in his negotiations with President Bush. A whole range of issues, whether the International Criminal Court, Iraq or even the Chancellor's laudable attempts to secure debt relief, are being stopped, stymied, blocked or opposed by the United States. It is difficult to think of anything that the US has done recently that is helpful to the UK. Our special relationship with the United States is peculiar; it is all give on one side and all take on the other. That seems a peculiar arrangement. I wonder whether it is seriously worth pursuing the idea that we can secure any agreement from the Americans. That is not to say that we should not talk to them. We can agree on matters such as technology and investment in technology and we can agree to share science and so on, but we must not in any circumstances allow the US to be a brake on the post-Kyoto arrangements. We must ensure that those arrangements are put in place with the countries that are willing to agree to them. We must also ensure that they include targets.
	The Secretary of State will be aware of a report in The Observer that suggested that in the December Council the British Government made an attempt to abandon the 2050 target for a 60 per cent. reduction in carbon dioxide emissions. We were told subsequently that that was a tactic by the British Government and that in March the policy would come back in.

Margaret Beckett: I do not want to detain the House, but that was not a tactic by the Government. It was a mistake by The Observer.

Norman Baker: I am sure that The Observer will have seen that and will reply at length on Sunday. Sadly, none of us has the opportunity to do so in that particular format. However, I have seen the minutes so I take the Secretary of State's comment with a pinch of salt. It looked to me, from reading the minutes, as though The Observer was accurate, but never mind, we will take the matter at face value.
	I have not concentrated on domestic policy because it is important to get the international scene right. With due respect to the Government, however, if they are to achieve credibility abroad they must deliver real progress at home. Grandiose speeches abroad are no substitute for action at home. I do not pretend that it is easy or that all the problems can be solved overnight, but there are significant shortcomings in the Government's performance that must be addressed. One is Government structure. The Government, sadly in my view, abandoned the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, which for the first time brought transport and the environment together in a sensible way. We now have DEFRA, which, with due respect to the Secretary of State, does not carry the same weight in the Government as the Treasury or the Department of Trade and Industry.

Elliot Morley: It does.

Norman Baker: I should be very surprised if that were so. I can give the Minister chapter and verse, whether on the national allocation plan, abandoned cars or a range of other issues, to show how DEFRA has lost out to the DTI time and time again recently.

Sydney Chapman: As well as the desperate need significantly to reduce carbon emissions, we are making a double whammy of the crisis. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned that fact. It has been calculated that over the past 25 years we have chopped down 5 million sq km of rain forestthe one instrument, so to speak, that can actually mop up carbon dioxide emissions. That 5 million sq km is equivalent to 20 times the size of the land mass of the United Kingdom.

Norman Baker: That is a good point, which demonstrates how impossible it is to cover the whole range of issues in a speech such as this, especially as I do not want to take any more time from the other Members who want to speak.
	The Government must make more progress on transport, where there has been a big increase in emissions which is out of control. Road traffic will grow by about 25 per cent. over this decade alone. Public transport fares are rocketing. The cost of travelling by rail has gone up by 84 per cent. since 1974 and is about to increase again; the cost of travelling by bus has grown by 71 per cent., while the cost of motoring has gone down. We have the aviation problems to which the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) rightly referred earlier and they, too, need to be tackled. Stephen Tindale of Greenpeace has said that the Government have failed and that they seem to have given up on controlling emissions from transport. That is a big problem and the Government must sort it out. They must also ensure that their energy White Paper, which contains many good ideas, is brought to fruition.
	The motion sets out the absolute importance of the need to take urgent action on the serious threat facing the planet from climate change. It recognises the need to engage the US and developing countries, and calls on the Government to ensure that that is a key priority. I hope very much that the House will support the motion.

Margaret Beckett: I find myself in a rather unusual position for a Minister taking part in an Opposition day debate. Although, inevitably, I do not agree with everything that the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) has just said, I am in agreement with the sentiments expressed in the motion. As the opening words of the motion draw attention to the overwhelming importance and gravity of the threat of climate change, it is welcome and not altogether surprising that there should be common ground and agreement on both sides of the House, or at least in most parts of the House.
	Climate change is a global problemprobably, as the motion says, the most urgent challenge facing the global community. It requires not only political leadership but ultimately a global solution. The Prime Minister, as is acknowledged across the world, is doing his utmost to provide that leadership and is leading international efforts to tackle climate change. It was his decision to make climate change a top priority for both our G8 and our EU presidencies. I welcome the recognition of that fact in the Liberal Democrat motion.
	I begin by reiterating, as did the hon. Member for Lewes in his opening speech, the sheer breadth of consensus on the science of climate changea degree of consensus, which, as he said, is not always reflected in the way in which scientific discussion is reported. Over about 18 years, the intergovernmental panel on climate change has brought together more than 1,000 international scientific experts on climate change.
	The IPCC's third assessment report in 2001 concluded that there was strong evidence that climate change owing to human emissions of greenhouse gases was already occurring and that future emissions of greenhouse gases were likely to raise global temperatures by between 1.4 and 5.8 C during this century. I am always conscious of the fact that that does not sound very much, but I am equally conscious of the fact that the scientific evidence suggests that such a rise in temperature would have a wide range of impacts both on the natural world and, in consequence, on human society.
	Nevertheless, some are still questioning whether we should worry about climate change. The most vociferous challenges that we hear nearly all come from self-proclaimed experts with little real expertise, whose arguments nevertheless receive attention that is out of all proportion to either their numbers or their relevance. That is not unprecedented, of course. The hon. Member for Lewes gave the example of those who query the link between lung cancer and smoking, and there are still more who still query the link between HIV and AIDS. So that phenomenon is not uncommon, but it is dangerous.
	I will not reiterate the examples that the hon. Gentleman gave, but I will make an observation about one of those whom he quoted. As he rightly says, Professor Lomborg talks instead about diverting resources that could be used to help to tackle the problems of climate change to tackle those of development. Indeed, we all accept that development needs to be addressed, but the real danger of his argument is that if we follow the route that he prescribesthe hon. Gentleman used the example of pouring water into a colanderwe would certainly be in danger of running to stand still, because of trying to tackle impacts that we were not seeking to mitigate. Such people must not be allowed to divert us from the real question, which is not whether climate change is happening, but what we could and should do about it.

Simon Hughes: May I add a further consensual proposition? We have the very unusual circumstance of an Opposition motion on the Order Paper without an amendment from the Government or the Conservative party. There is consensus among the main parties, and broad consensus among those outside who know what they are talking about. Will the right hon. Lady join usI know that she tries to do this all the timein persuading the media to place more importance on the huge international issues on which there is agreement than on ridiculous attempts to divide us on matters of zero importance to people abroad, let alone people at home?

Margaret Beckett: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Of course, I understand the anxiety expressed by the Father of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). No one is talking about stifling debate, but there is no harm in giving a proper weighting and relevance to the different contributions to that debate, and I share the view expressed by the hon. Gentleman and his colleague the hon. Member for Lewes that, unfortunately, that still does not seem to be happening in many parts of the media, which give entirely disproportionate space, time and coverage to those whose views are neither widely shared nor widely respected.
	The international community has taken an unprecedented and significant step. It is particularly significant in this context because it is clear that the whole international community has accepted the science of climate change and thereby agreed to the Kyoto protocol, whose entry into force we will celebrate next Wednesday. But the Kyoto protocol is just a first tiny step towards tackling climate change. There is little doubt that the uncertainty of the past year or so about when andindeed, at some stageswhether it would come into force had led to a loss of momentum in international discussions on climate change, and we urgently need to renew that momentum. That is why the Prime Minister put climate change, with Africa, at the top of the international political agenda this year.

Tam Dalyell: Has my right hon. Friend had the opportunity to make clear her views to either the BBC or the other media on the balance of reporting between those who recognise climate change and those who, for whatever reason, do not? If she has, what answers has she had?

Margaret Beckett: I have not made formal representations because I must admit to my hon. Friend that, over my years in politics, I have not found that formal protests to the news media about such issues are very productive. However, I am awareI think that this is widely knownthat, for example, a thoughtful, well-constructed letter making exactly that point but not challenging people's right to be heard has been sent to such organisations from national representatives of four of the best known non-governmental organisations. I thought for a day or so that that plea had been heard, but in more recent days, there is some evidence that it has been set aside yet again. I share my hon. Friend's view that it would be advantageous to us all if we could move on from what is a very sterile dispute into the much more difficult territory of what we do and how we do it most effectively.

Anne Campbell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the people who say that climate change is not real and is not happening can have quite a damaging effect on our ability to take effective action, by giving people an opportunity and an excuse to say that they do not need to change their lifestyles? That could have a very damaging impact on the future.

Margaret Beckett: I agree with my hon. Friend that, indeed, such claims can have a damaging effect, and some of their manifestations are more bizarre than others. I was faintly surprised to hear that someone is now suggesting that there is no evidence of sea level rise. I should have thought that that was one of the easiest things to observein fact, it is taking place.
	Our presidencies of the G8 and the EU give us the opportunity this year to refocus political attention both on the scale of the challenge and, indeed, on how we can meet it. As the Prime Minister said at the Davos meeting of the World Economic Forum, we need to send a clear signal of our common direction of travel to show that we are united as a world community in moving in the direction of greenhouse gas reductions, thus making that a signal that business and the global economy will understand and can follow. We need to underpin that with a firm push for research and technology and for the implementation of technological developments. We need to reach out to the developing world, both to those rapidly industrialising economies whose growing energy needs must be met sustainably and to the least developed countries, whichagain, as the hon. Member for Lewes saidstand to lose most from the effects of climate change.

Peter Ainsworth: I do not wish to sound churlish and I hear what the right hon. Lady says and welcome the prominence given to the issue in the EU presidency, but has she spoken recently to the Foreign Office, which produced a Command Paper called Prospects for the EU in 2005 this month? One might have thought that that provided an opportunity to set out the stall for the objectives on climate change, but climate change is mentioned in only two of 97 paragraphs in that document. That does not fill me with confidence that the Foreign Office, at least, has seized that agenda.

Margaret Beckett: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary would do so, too. I simply say that what the Foreign Office was seeking to do in that paper was to highlight the things that perhaps people do not know are very much already on the agenda, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that we have the utmost help and co-operation from the Foreign Office, from the Foreign Secretary and, not least, from the many more junior members of the Foreign Office who are in place in our posts in all the various countries with which we need to work and who provide an excellent and very co-operative service, working with my Department, to spread some of these messages. I understand the anxiety that the hon. Gentleman highlights, but I assure him that the Foreign Office is very much on side.
	To map our direction of travel, we need to be guided by the best scientific evidence on the potential impact of climate change. That is why at the start of our G8 year, at the Met Office in Exeter last week, we convened a meeting of the top international scientists working on climate change. Those at the meeting concluded that, compared with the IPCC's last assessment in 2001, there is now greater clarity and less uncertainty about the impact of climate change across a wide range of systems, sectors and societies. In many cases, those at the meeting suggested that the risks are more serious than previously thought.
	Those at the conference noted that there is evidence that the sensitivity of the climate system to greenhouse gas emissions is now likely to be higher than was believed even in 2001, and that that implies a greater likelihood both of temperature increase and of damaging impacts at lower levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Those at the conference also noted that delaying taking action is likely to require greater action later to achieve the same temperature target, and suggested that even a delay of only five years could be significant.
	As I read those words, I was reminded of a remark that an American business man made to me in Davosit used sailing as a metaphor, so perhaps it is appropriate today. He said that if it is thought necessary to change course, the earlier one does so, the smaller the course correction can be. The later one leaves it, the greater the course correction, and if one leaves it too late, sometimes sufficient correction cannot be made. That is an apposite and useful example.

Tam Dalyell: Before my right hon. Friend leaves the subject of the Exeter meeting, may I ask her a question? She will know, because the Minister for the Environment and Agri-environment wound up the meeting, that last Tuesday Professor Mitchell of the Met Office in Exeter, along with Sir David King, emphasised the difficulties that arise when rain falls instead of slow-melting snow, because it comes down much more quickly and there is thus less time for absorption. May I take it that that subject is a top research priority?

Margaret Beckett: We are indeed examining that matter. I am mindful of the remarks from the end of the conference, and we are all conscious, whether owing to snow melt or other events such as those in Boscastle recently, of the way in which changes to the pattern of water flows can make a significant difference to previously expected circumstances.
	The report of the science conference uses measured and careful words, but it gives a clear message to politicians. It underlines the urgency of action, and we must ensure that that message is widely heard in the G8, in the EU, at the UN and in our constituencieswherever climate change is discussed. However, we will not achieve progress simply by reiterating the scale of the threat. We also need to demonstrate that the global community can meet the challenge successfully. As the Prime Minister said in Davos, if we put forward as a solution to climate change something that involves drastic cuts in growth or standards of living, it simply will not be accepted, not least by the poorest countries and societies for which survival itself requires development.
	Fortunately, that need not be the case. The UK set out two years ago in the energy White Paper our commitment to cutting our emissions by 60 per cent. by about 2050. We believe that the target is achievable without sacrificing our economy, as our economic analysis suggests. Indeed, the impact of unchecked climate change would be far more damaging to our economy. We therefore hope that others will consider not only following that analysis, but setting similar long-term goals.
	Perhaps because we have all been focused on the scale of the challenge, the international community has hitherto spent too little time discussing and co-operating on the strategic challenges of moving to a low-carbon economy. That is why next month, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and I will host a round-table discussion for Energy and Environment Ministers from 20 countries that will focus on such issues. It will be a unique forum to bring together countries with significant and growing energy needs and cut across the usual divides between both developed and developing economies, and ministerial portfolios. The round-table discussion will examine the challenges of stimulating research, technology and investment to tackle climate change, and will try to identify some of the ways forward.
	All countries need to be engaged in the effort to tackle climate change, including the world's largest economy and biggest greenhouse gas emitter, the United States. There is evidence, although I do not suggest that it has been evident in the Chamber today, that some may want to use this issue to engage in grand political gestures and to isolate the US for its regrettable refusal to ratify the Kyoto protocol. There is evidence that some people hope that the US will somehow, through isolation, be drawn back into international dialogue or agreement. That is not a credible strategy. We have already seen from the Kyoto protocol the problems that can be stored up if we do not build the underlying political acceptance needed to deliver our objectives: acceptance is required for the exercise of political will. The Government will thus continue, bilaterally and with our EU partners, to engage the United States intensively in climate change discussions at all levels. We will, of course, do that through the G8, but not exclusively so.

Paddy Tipping: There has been remarkable consensus in the Chamber today, but is it not the case that the programme advocated by the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) is based around the isolation of the United States? Surely we must engage with the largest producer of carbon, hold sensible discussions and acknowledge the work that is being done there so that we can find an appropriate way forward in all our interests.

Margaret Beckett: In fairness to the hon. Member for Lewesperhaps I misunderstood himI do not entirely share my hon. Friend's interpretation of his remarks. However, I assure my hon. Friend that we believe that we will stand our best chance of success through engagement.

Malcolm Bruce: Is not the reality that the Liberal Democrats are expressing frustration with the United States because its technology on, and capacity for, energy conservation would allow it to gain the most from, and give the most to, solving the problem? We must of course enlist its technology in addition to our own to solve the problem. Expressing frustration is not the same as not engaging.

Margaret Beckett: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that clarification. I am sure that everyone in the House shares his view on the need for such technological engagement. Indeed, we welcome the focus that the present American Administration have put on research and technology. We must avoid the trap of depicting policy frameworks and technology development as not only alternative, but mutually exclusive, ways of tackling climate change. We take the view that both are essential. In the absence of mandatory policies at federal level, we welcome the fact that several American states are increasingly putting their own innovative policies in place. We are co-operating with those who wish to learn from the UK and EU experience.
	The Government have consistently sought to provide leadership on climate change. We have done that through our leading role in the negotiations at Kyoto, Bonn and Marrakech, through our ambitious national targetsour 12.5 per cent. Kyoto commitment, our 20 per cent. nationally set carbon dioxide goal for 2010, and our longer-term 60 per cent. objective for 2050and through our ground-breaking programmes of national action to deliver them.

Anne Campbell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that plant diversity can play an important part in climate change? The World Conservation Monitoring Centre, which is based in Cambridge and funded by the United Nations Environment Programme, is a worthy institute that needs consistent and sustained funding to do its work properly. Will she give a commitment to try to find a stable source of funding for that greatly renowned institute?

Margaret Beckett: I agree with my hon. Friend's general point about the importance of plant diversity, and I understand her anxieties. We are conscious not only of the consistent funding difficulties of the United Nations Environment Programme, but of the discussions that have been taking place about the centre. Although I cannot undertake to solve its problems, my hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Agri-environment continues to be engaged in discussions on the matter.
	I referred to the programmes of action that the Government have put in place. They include the climate change levy, climate change agreements, the world's first economy-wide emissions trading scheme, the renewables obligation, our energy efficiency commitment and the work of the Carbon and Energy Saving Trusts. However, we recognise the need for further action to meet our commitments, which is why a review of our climate change strategy itself is under way.
	Incredibly, it appearsI hope that we will flush out a denial during the debatethat although the official Opposition claim, I think, to share those common goals, they propose to sweep much of that away. The Conservatives' response to the biggest threat to our quality of life and our children's future has been to oppose some of the most important elements of our climate change programmes. The Conservatives opposed the climate change levy, which has effectively provided business with an incentive to cut emissions and financed new initiatives to do so, such as the Carbon Trust. All revenue from the levy is recycled to support businesses in cutting emissions, which casts doubt on any proposal for its abolition. The Conservatives have also opposed our proposals for the EU emissions trading scheme and, apparently, the Government's renewable energy programme. That is all too consistent with their wider environmental agenda, as the motion points out. Their proposals under the James review include slashing spending in some of the most important elements of our environmental protection and conservation work.

James Paice: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Margaret Beckett: I shall be pleased to give way; I hope that the hon. Gentleman is about to tell me that his policy has changed.

James Paice: I want the Secretary of State to go back over the accusation that she made against the Opposition about the European emissions trading policy. On what basis does she suggest that we have opposed the European emissions trading scheme?

Margaret Beckett: I am afraid that I am not carrying any Hansard references with me[Interruption]but that is certainly the impression that we have been given. If that is not the Conservative party's policy, I am delighted to hear it. Would the hon. Gentleman like to tell me from the Dispatch Box that the Conservatives do not propose to abolish the climate change levy? Perhaps he would like to confirm that, as we understand from the last time that the Opposition were asked about the issue, the Conservative party does not feel able yet to support our 60 per cent. target on cutting greenhouse gas emissions. I see that that, too, seems still to be Conservative policyor rather lack of policy.

Richard Ottaway: In attacking the Conservatives on the climate change levy, is the right hon. Lady not missing an important point about carbon trading, which I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) has confirmed we are supporting? With carbon trading, the climate change levy becomes ineffective. The climate is not changed; it is not a levy but a tax.

Margaret Beckett: I do not share the hon. Gentleman's point of view, but I am grateful to him for intervening, because it gave my hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Agri-environment the opportunity to remind me of what led us to what I have been told is the erroneous conclusion that the Conservative party does not support the EU emissions trading scheme. We were led into that error by their praying against the regulations that introduced the scheme. It is clearly a mistake to think that that had anything to do with their policy. We were also led into the error by the continued criticism, which I am sure I recall hearing from the Opposition Benches, that the targets, including the initial national allocation plan which we have since sought to amend, were too harsh on British industry. A sinner who repents is always welcome.

David Kidney: The motion also mentions the Environment Agency. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the agency does sterling work? For example, it helps to respond to increasing extremes of weather, such as flooding, and has driven up the quality of our drinking, bathing and river water to a superb level. Is that not because of consistent and substantial Government funding?

Margaret Beckett: My hon. Friend is entirely right in drawing attention both to the value of much of the work of the Environment Agency and to Government funding and the dangers of the James review proposals. The Conservatives propose to take 47 million from the Environment Agency through 1,286 job cuts among those whom they dismiss as operational staff. They are the very people who clean up after disasters, whether in the circumstances that my hon. Friend has identified or those involving the Sea Empress, which caused a massive oil spill off the Welsh coast in 1996.
	The Conservatives also gloss over the role of those whom they intend to sack in enforcing the rules on, for example, fly-tippingabandoned cars, beds and other rubbishwhich blights so many landscapes and brings great misery to many ordinary families and communities. Again, that is consistent at least with the voting pattern that the Tory Opposition have displayed. That is why they opposed the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Bill on Second Reading on 10 January, when they said that such matters were urban issues and not rural concerns. This Government disagree, and think that our proposals will improve the local environment for all in urban and rural areas.
	Let us consider the Tory approach to climate change. Claiming to recognise the dangers while rejecting potential solutions is not merely backward-looking but typically short-sighted. The motion correctly stresses that it is possible to grow our economy and cut greenhouse gas emissions. Between 1990 and 2003, our gross domestic product went up by 32 per cent., while our greenhouse gas emissions went down by about 14 per cent.

Simon Thomas: The right hon. Lady is right about the global figures, but surely she is concerned that emissions from transport have gone up and, as I said earlier, aviation emissions have risen significantly. Aviation is covered by international agreements, but we can do something about transport in this country. Does she accept that motoring overall has become cheaper and that the cost of public transport has significantly risen? If so, what will she and the Treasury do to ensure that we encourage motorists to take the cheapest and least environmentally damaging form of transport, saving on carbon emissions? Surely there must be a strategy for dealing with that aspect of emissions.

Margaret Beckett: I accept the hon. Gentleman's point that transport emissions are a very important factor. He referred to the issue of aviation emissions and he is right that they can only be tackled internationally. I hope that he is aware that one of the Government's goals during our EU presidency is to move towards bringing aviation emissions into the second phase of the EU emissions trading scheme. There are many technical problems to solve before that can be done, but it would certainly be a worthwhile and constructive outcome.
	The hon. Gentleman is unduly harsh on the Department for Transport and on the Government's overall record on transport emissions. First, the Department for Transport has joined my Department and the DTI in our climate change goals and public service agreements. Secondly, if he looks back at the structure of company car taxation that we inherited, he will see that substantial changes have been made to that, as well as the changes to the taxation structure that the Chancellor made to encourage the use of more environmentally friendly fuel. So it is not the case that steps have not been taken, but I accept that there is a great deal more to do on that, as on other fronts. That is part of the purpose of our climate change programme review.

Peter Ainsworth: The Secretary of State will be aware that among organisations engaged in education on sustainable development there is considerable anxiety about funding, the end of the landfill tax credit funding scheme and the transfer of responsibilities to the Department for Education and Skills. Does she accept that very much part of the solution to all the great difficulties that we face when dealing with climate change is better education? What reassurance can she offer those organisations that they will continue to receive such Government funding?

Margaret Beckett: Obviously, I cannot give an assurance that every programme will be supported in quite the same way, but we looked very carefully at the programmes that were supported under previous schemes to try to achieve the maximum value for money, which I am sure the hon. Gentleman would be the first to seek and to applaud. Although I entirely share his view that it is through education that many of the problems can be tackled, I have little doubt that the Department for Education and Skills is as committed to that as my Department. The previous Secretary of State certainly took the issue very seriously and I have no cause whatever to doubt that his successor takes it no less seriously.
	I have talked about the way in which these issues are handled and how we seek to make 2005 a year of international leadership. We will use our EU presidency to encourage EU colleagues to meet their Kyoto targets; to set out a medium and long-term strategy for the EU beyond Kyoto, working towards the guideline of limiting global temperature increase to no more than 2o C, which is an existing EU guideline; and above all to engage the EU in a debate about further action with the wider international community.
	I do not want to be diverted, but perhaps this is the point at which to say to the hon. Member for Lewes, who raised the story in The Observer, that there has been a genuine misunderstanding. We all understand that it is always a problem when journalists get hold of a document that they believe to be exclusive, as they often become rather more excited than the content justifies. The European Commission is undertaking on behalf of the whole Community exactly the analysis of the scientific and economic impact of measures that might be taken that we undertook before we drew up our energy White Paper and agreed to our 60 per cent. target. We expect the publication of that analysis this month. It will be considered in the March Council, which will discuss its implications for any medium and long-term targets or goals that the EU might set. The Environment Council was unanimous in resisting attempts to get member states to commit themselves to a number the month before the analysis was published, rather than wait until the month after. That never struck us as a good way to make policy, but I concede that there have been misunderstandings.
	In the past few months, there have been some encouraging signals in the international dialogue. It was inevitably becalmed while people wondered whether the Kyoto protocol would come into force, or whether we needed to build on the consensus behind it by some alternative means, but Russia's welcome decision to ratify has been accompanied by two other recent developments. First, everyone has begun to focus more on how we can adapt to the climate changes already built in by human activity in the past century: focusing on adaptation, especially on supporting and assisting the most vulnerable, heightens awareness of the need to find ways to avert even greater dangers and to mitigate our impact on the environment. Secondly, recognition has grown of the fact that, especially in economies such as ours, with increased challenges come increased opportunities. The most obvious are the opportunities to save money while saving carbonopportunities highlighted by the Carbon Trust and the Energy Saving Trustbut, while welcome, they are a small part of the potential economic benefits of tackling climate change. New jobseven new industriesare growing up around us: four years ago, 170,000 people were employed in environmental industries, which had a turnover of some 16 billion; today, there are 400,000 such jobs and turnover has reached 25 billion.
	Despite those real opportunities, which we must seize, as the world's top scientists recently reconfirmed, climate change remains a serious threat to our worldnot in some far distant future, but in our own and our children's and grandchildren's lifetimes. It is a problem crying out for leadership. The Prime Minister has committed the Government to providing that leadership and I hope that the House will agree to support us in doing so by giving its support to the motion.

Tim Yeo: I warmly congratulate the Liberal Democrats on choosing the subject of today's debate, and I welcome the Secretary of State to her place. Although I am not sure who wrote her speech, I strongly advise her to sack them. I profoundly deplore the fact that, in relation to such an important subject on which there is so much consensus across the House, she has continued in this debate to display the bad habits that she recently displayed on Radio 4 by making assertions that have no basis in fact. I shall deal with her Radio 4 remarks later in my speech, but on the specific matter of emissions trading, let me point out that everyone knows that the Conservative party has always, without reservation, supported the principle. It is both ignorant and outrageous of her to suggest otherwise, and she does herself and the Government no good in the eyes of those who take an interest in the subject, including many distinguished non-governmental organisations, by making wholly unfounded allegations about the Conservative party, its record and its policy.
	This is an unusual Opposition day. No Government amendment to the motion has been tabled, because the Liberal Democrats' motion does not criticise the Government at all but merely attacks the Conservatives. That might give a clue to the Liberal Democrats' intentions, but I have to say, in a spirit of co-operation, that given the last Conservative Government's excellent record on climate change, it is regrettable that the motion only attacks the Conservative party, especially as all the progress made by Britain in cutting carbon dioxide emissions was achieved when the Conservative Government were in power, and since Labour came to office no further progress has been made. I therefore find it rather extraordinary that the Liberal Democrats have included the section in question in their motion, although, to be fair to the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), he scarcely referred to it in his speech. Perhaps he realised that it did not fit well with the general tone of his speech, with much of which I agree.
	Let me deal briefly with the rather silly attack on the Conservative party in the motion by making it clear that when the next Conservative Government have reached the happy stage of being able to abolish the climate change levya clumsy and crude tax, which has not achieved most of the benefits claimed for it and whose main purpose, as my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) pointed out, is removed once an emissions trading scheme is operating effectivelywe shall continue to fund the Carbon Trust, the national insurance contributions concessions, the enhanced capital allowances and the other measures that the levy has paid for out of general taxation.

Elliot Morley: indicated dissent.

Tim Yeo: There is nothing new in thisit is all on the record. Perhaps the Minister is trying to apologise for the outrageous assertions made by the Secretary of State, for which there was no basis in fact.
	In addition, we shall introduce other market instruments, including changes to the tax system, to ensure that businesses and individuals are encouraged to act in an environmentally friendly way.
	Twelve years have passed since I was a Minister of State at the former Department of the Environment responsible for, among other things, climate change policy. I was convinced then that the evidence that the world's climate was changing was irrefutable, and it seemed to me that the likelihood of those changes being caused at least in part by human activity was very strong. Today, I believe the evidence is even stronger. Few peopleapart from those with vested interests, some of whom were named by the hon. Member for Lewesattempt to deny either the scale or the urgency of the challenge we face. The chief scientific adviser certainly does not: he has called climate change
	the most serious issue facing us this century.
	In his view,
	Action is affordable. Inaction is not.
	A basic duty of Government is to protect citizens against external threats. Defending the borders and policing the streets have long been accepted as part of that duty; another part should be protecting citizens against the consequences of climate change. Achieving the goal of climate stability is a prerequisite of economic prosperity in any part of the world. The present generation of political leaders will be judged not only by how they handle the threat of terrorism but by how they respond to the challenge of climate change.
	Fifteen years ago, Britain's Government responded well. My noble Friend Baroness Thatcher was the first Head of Government of any major country to take climate change seriously. Her statesmanlike approach, coupled with the quality of Britain's scientists, gave us international leadership on this important issue. Later, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) played a key role in persuading the United States to sign the Rio treaty. When Labour came to power, hopes were high that Britain's distinguished contribution to confronting the challenge would continue, and the negotiation of the Kyoto treaty was a positive step. The right hon. Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher), who is sadly no longer a member of the Government, grappled intelligently and bravely with the issues, but regrettably his proved to be a lone voice inside the Government. Gradually, it has become clear that Labour's approach to climate change is all talk.
	I welcome the emphasis the Prime Minister has put on the subject in recent weeks. It is good that climate change is at the centre of his agenda for the G8 chairmanship and the EU presidency, but much more than gestures are needed if Britain is to regain the influence it once had. Two things need to happen, and quickly. First, Britain must put its own house in order. Progress in reducing carbon dioxide emissions was good before 1997, under the Conservative Government, but it has stalled. Earlier decreases in emissions have been replaced by a levelling out of the trend, and in some individual years since 1997 emissions have increased.
	Sadly, the Secretary of State does not seem to understand those facts. On Radio 4's Today programme a few days ago, she misleadingly claimed that emissions of greenhouse gases were well down on what they were when Labour came to power in 1997. As Friends of the Earth immediately pointed out, carbon dioxide emissions have not fallen in the UK since Labour came to power.

Margaret Beckett: I am sorry, but I am afraid that it is the hon. Gentleman who is misunderstanding the point I was making. I was not challenging the fact that, sadly, our carbon dioxide emissions have not gone down. I will not go into the issue of the Conservative record, except to point out that flattening the economy through two recessions means that it is rather easier to cut emissions. It is true that our carbon dioxide emissions have not fallen, just as it is true that they have risen across the whole northern hemisphere. Nevertheless, the basket of greenhouse gases that are part of our Kyoto target has fallen significantly, and we are reaching our Kyoto target several years ahead of time.

Tim Yeo: The Secretary of State rehearses the tired old argument that the cut in carbon dioxide emissions before 1997 was something to do with the performance of the economy. Let me remind her that we have recently been hearing boasts from the Government about 50 consecutive quarters of economic growth. Almost half those quarters occurred before 1997, under the Conservative Government. The reduction in carbon dioxide emissions under the Conservatives was achieved in a period covering five years of continuous economic growth. The last five years of that period were of continuous economic growth, but despite that, that Government's policies achieved a cut in carbon dioxide emissions that this Government have failed to achieve. They have failed to continue the progress. She misleadingly referred to greenhouse gases in the hope that people will think that they are carbon dioxide. I am glad to say that on the very day when she made her broadcast,2 February, a week ago tomorrowa Friends of the Earth press release made it clear within hours that
	Carbon dioxide levels have not fallen since Labour came to power . . . UK emissions of carbon dioxide stand at only 7.5 per cent below the 1990 baselinethe same as when Labour came to power in 1997.
	Perhaps the rises in carbon dioxide emissions that have occurred under Labour explain the attempts reportedly made in secret last year by Britain to water down the longer-term EU targets. Whether or not those reports are trueI have heard the exchanges between the hon. Member for Lewes and the Secretary of Statethey certainly give rise to very justifiable concern. In any event, the Government have been forced to admitat least, this is clear to everyone elsethat they will be unable to achieve their own target for carbon dioxide emissions, which is a cut of 20 per cent. on 1990 levels by 2010, as set out in the 1997 Labour election manifesto. That target cannot now possibly be met.
	That failure scarcely enables Britain to lecture other countries about the need for more progress. Britain's failure to have a national allocations plan ready and agreed in time for the start of trading in the EU emissions trading scheme further weakens the Government's international authority. Despite its flaws, the EU emissions trading scheme is, at least for the time being, the only game in town. It is the best mechanism available for encouraging the efficient use of resources in tackling climate change and cutting carbon dioxide emissions.
	Last summer, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs had a national allocations plan ready for submission to the EU, but the plan was apparently ripped up on the intervention of the Prime Minister himself. The result is that today, British companies are unable to take part in emissions trading.

Margaret Beckett: That is not entirely accurate. Forward trading is taking place, and no spot trading is taking place at the moment. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be able to explain this away, but I detect some inconsistency in the fact that the Conservatives prayed against the regulations that put in place the emissions trading scheme and have argued against our proposals for the national allocation plan, saying that they were too tough on British business. Having attacked us for being too tough on British business, when we went back to the Commission and said that we believed on the basis of further information that we should be allowed to amend our plan, as a great deal more information had come in since the provisional numberswe said at the outset that they were provisionalwere drawn up, he is now attacking us for wanting to make the change for which the Opposition called at the time.

Tim Yeo: It is perfectly consistent with strong support for the principle of emissions trading to force debates on the detail of any regulations or measures that are needed to give effect to that principle. We remain unequivocal in our support for the principle of emissions trading as the most effective way of allocating resources in pursuit of the aim of reducing carbon dioxide emissions. On the second point, my criticism is that the Government were not ready. We have known about the start date for emissions trading for years. It should not have been difficult for the Government to work out what our national allocations plan should set out in the interests of a proper balance between environmental gain and the needs of business. Indeed, I am interested that the Secretary of State seems to suggest that it was pressure from the Opposition that caused the Government to withdraw the original plan. Many of my hon. Friends will be flattered to think that the Government pay so much attention to our views. In fact, the Government, as they so often do, caved in to the demands of big business. Big business, not small business, goes round to Downing street and has a word with the Prime Minister, so the plan was ripped up.
	It is the result of that chaos that I particularly criticise. It is not the detail of plan A or B, but the fact that, after several years in which to prepare, we have reached the starting date and Britain has joined the Czech Republic, Poland, Greece and Italy as the only countries in the EU that have been unable to get their act together. I think that that shows how inadequate the Government's approach to this very important international issue so often is.
	It is hard to see quite how the Prime Minister can reconcile the actions of his Government in that respect with his speech on 14 September last year, when he said that climate change was
	the world's greatest environmental challenge
	and that
	our efforts to stabilise the climate will need, over time, to become far more ambitious than the Kyoto Protocol.
	On this issue, it appears that, while the Prime Minister is on the surface all talk, behind the scenes his Government are working in precisely the opposite direction from that which is needed if his fine words are to be put into practice. As Bryony Worthington of Friends of the Earth put it:
	The trading scheme is potentially a huge step forward in the race to tackle climate change, but it has been undermined by the lack of ambition countries have shown in bringing it into action. The UK has provided a classic example of how not to do it.

Alan Whitehead: In terms of speeches that said substantial things but did not presage as much as those substantial things might have suggested, does the hon. Gentleman recall that he set out Conservative action for a greener Britain in a speech to the Centre for Policy Studies on 7 December? Can he recall referring in that speech to a single unequivocal commitment to a new policy instrument dealing with climate change, other than the unequivocal commitment to
	nominate 100 stations for urgent upgrade funded by commercial investors?

Tim Yeo: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on reading out the Whips' brief, but if he thinks that that causes the remotest embarrassment on the Opposition Benches, he will have to think again. I will set out well before the election some specific measures. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh, but in view of the collaboration that we have seen between the Liberal Democrats and the Government in the terms of the motion, perhaps the Liberal Democrats also have some inside information on the date of the election. Will the Government cut and run before Easter after all?

Alan Whitehead: Is the answer no?

Tim Yeo: The answer to the hon. Gentleman is that I set out in a broad way a number of measures that I believe the next Conservative Government should take. I will put flesh on the bones of those measures in the next few weeks. I shall return to the point about railway stations in a moment, but I am surprised that Labour Members should think that it is a bad idea to draw extra capital into modernising Britain's railway stations. The only specific quotation that he could produce from my speech to the Centre for Policy Studies was one in which I set out our passionate commitment to getting public transport the extra investment that it plainly needs and is not receiving under a Labour Government.

Peter Ainsworth: I look forward to hearing what my hon. Friend has to say when he sets out his stall in due course. He will know that huge commercial opportunities are available in tackling climate change, and many businesses are making good business out of taking those opportunities. Does he not agree, however, that science, technologies and business opportunities may not be enough, and that there is indeed a role for fiscal instruments and perhaps the bolder use of such instruments than we have yet seen in this country, as well as regulations, which themselves can create new markets?

Tim Yeo: I pay warm tribute to my hon. Friend's chairmanship of the Environmental Audit Committee, which has produced many constructive and thoughtful reports on the subjects that we are debating today. He is right that no inherent conflict exists between economic growth, business opportunities and commercial prosperity, and the measures that are needed to tackle climate changeindeed, the two go hand in hand.
	Fiscal instruments have an important role to play. I am determined that the next Conservative Government will make greater use of fiscal instruments than the present Government. Unexploited opportunities exist to use our tax system to encourage people to make greener choices.
	The starting date for emissions trading, 1 January 2005, was not a great surprise. It is difficult to reconcile the Government's failure to be ready for that date with their claim that they are putting climate change at the heart of the British EU presidency. I wonder how much satisfaction the Minister takes in seeing Britain among the laggards in that process.
	Although participation in the scheme, when it eventually happens, will be helpful, it is not the whole answer to getting Britain's CO 2 emissions back on a firmly downward trend, which will require policy changes in four areas. First, energy efficiency may be unglamorous, but as a former Conservative Secretary of State for Energy put it, it is
	the cheapest, swiftest and most publicly acceptable way to combat global warming.
	Even those sceptics who question the science of climate change can scarcely attack measures designed to save households and businesses money. For domestic energy efficiency, the Government rely on the energy efficiency commitment to incentivise consumers. A scheme that does not rely exclusively on promotion by electricity suppliers might excite a wider consumer market. We are studying changes to the energy efficiency commitment to allow more businesses to benefit from promoting domestic energy efficiency, a model that could be applied to business customers as well as households.
	The second policy change concerns transport. I recognise that progress has been made in moving towards greener cars, and I am sure that that progress will continue, but transport still accounts for one quarter of CO 2 emissions. As is the case with energy efficiency, we must engage the public and help them to make more environmentally friendly choices. We should not use regulations or force people out of their cars, which is the Deputy Prime Minister's policy, because cars have enhanced the lives of millions of people. A car is the instrument that allows almost everyone today to enjoy freedoms that were confined to the rich 100 years ago.
	One way in which to encourage greener choices by car users is to go much further than the Government in introducing variable rates of vehicle excise duty, which is the direction suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth). That would be more effective than the colour-coded labels recently suggested by the Secretary of State for Transport. I am not against colour-coded labels, which sound suspiciously like a watered-down version of the colour-coded tax discs that I advocated last year as a way to make the impact that a vehicle has on the environment clear to the public.
	An incentive to buying a greener car even bigger than the colour of the label in the showroom would be a wider range of vehicle excise duty rates. Even if such changes applied to new purchases only, they would influence the choice of new vehicles, and everyone would be helped to continue to enjoy driving while reducing the impact of motoring on the public. The Government's approach is far too timid: the difference in vehicle excise duty between a Ferrari and a Smart car is only 50.
	Transport involves more than cars. Aviation, which has already been referred to, is the fastest growing source of CO 2 emissions in the transport sector, and I hope that it will soon fall within the EU emissions trading scheme. A possible tax on aviation fuel also seems to be back in the news. It could make a big contribution to capturing the environmental cost of aviation, but it will work only if it is introduced on an entirely international basis. If international agreement on aviation fuel taxing is eventually reached, some of the other taxes on aviation could be removed.
	More immediately, I am concerned about how little understanding the public have of the link between climate change and aviation. In a survey conducted by the Department for Transport a couple of years ago, only one person in eight made the connection between climate change and flying. We would educate the public about the impact of aviation on the environment if we were, for example, to encourage airlines to show emissions per passenger on travel documents, which would remind people that in environmental terms short-haul flights do not compare well with alternative modes of transport. The more information people are given, the more likely they are to choose the environmentally friendly option.
	The third area of policy change concerns renewable energy. The Government are in a muddle: their obsession with onshore wind farms, one of the least reliable and most unpopular forms of renewable energy, will ensure that they miss their own target for producing 10 per cent. of electricity from renewable sources by 2010. With only five years to go, it would be much better if they admitted that they will miss that target. We should develop a more coherent approach to renewable energy to exploit Britain's natural advantages as an island by using offshore technologies, including tidal power and wave power. In that context, I regret the Government's failure to introduce a marine conservation Bill to facilitate the establishment of offshore areas where marine-based renewable energy projects could flourish.

Colin Challen: Back in the '80s, Lady Thatcher introduced the non-fossil fuel obligation, the bulk of which was paid to the nuclear industry. We would be able to make greater progress towards our targets now if Conservative Governments had bothered to invest in renewable energy.

Tim Yeo: I am startled that the hon. Gentleman has singled out Baroness Thatcher as someone to attack on climate change. Anyone who has ever heard of the issue recognises that without her the world would be years behind in responding to the issue.
	The hon. Gentleman has attacked nuclear power. The present Government are doing their best to prop up the existing nuclear power stations to get a bit more life out of them, so his Front Benchers do not support him. Nuclear power has an extremely positive effect on climate change because it is by far the largest producer of energy without CO 2 emissions.

Norman Baker: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify whether it is Conservative party policy to build new nuclear power stations to tackle climate change?

Tim Yeo: Conservative party policy is to develop energy on the most economic basis. If the nuclear power industry shows that it can compete economically with other forms of power, and if it satisfies the proper and legitimate concerns expressed by some people about the disposal of waste, there is no reason why we should not build nuclear power stations.

Peter Ainsworth: Will my hon. Friend accept that the nuclear industry has managed to compete in the past only with huge dollops of taxpayers' money, and that it is unlikely to be able to solve those problems any time soon?

Tim Yeo: I am open-minded about nuclear power. [Laughter.] Liberal Democrat Members express great mirth at the idea that one should be open-minded. If a particular type of energy that happens to score well on CO 2 emissions shows that it can compete economically, it seems extraordinary that othersnotably the Liberal Democrats, who claim to be so concernedshould want to rule it out. The Liberal Democrat approach is extraordinary, and characteristically inconsistent. As I have said before in this House, we will wait and see whether the industry can meet the challenge that I have laid down.

Simon Thomas: If the hon. Gentleman is right about the Liberal Democrats and their attitude to nuclear energy, why is he prepared to rule out wind energy? In Wales, the Conservative party has opposed all wind farms, both offshore and onshore. We have the greatest wind resources in western Europe, and the technology is ready to go. Why is his party ruling out wind energy?

Tim Yeo: We are not, as it happens. We are saying that the Government's policy is extraordinarily distorted in that the help that they provide for renewable energy sources is directed heavily towards onshore wind farms. Local communities should have more say on whether an onshore wind farm is built in their area, and any strong local objections should be recognised. Ultimately, there should be a mix of renewables, including wind, wave and tidal power, and a whole variety of other sources.

Desmond Turner: I was gratified to hear the hon. Gentleman talk about the opportunities that we have on this island for marine renewable technologies. It grieves me to remind him that research into wave energy was killed off in the early stages of the Thatcher Administration. That was not a very good contribution, because had the work continued, that source would almost certainly be commercially available today.

Tim Yeo: If the hon. Gentleman is so concerned about the effect of Government policy on research, why does he support the present Government's policy, which has effectively choked off nearly all the resources available for research into anything other than wind power? He appears reluctant to call the Government to account for failing to learn the lessons that he says should have been learned by the Conservative Government.

Desmond Turner: rose

Tim Yeo: I have given way to the hon. Gentleman once, and I am afraid that I must make some progress.

Alistair Carmichael: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Tim Yeo: NoI am sorry.
	The fourth area of policy that needs to be changed concerns the planning system, which should be used to avoid making the consequences of climate change worse. For example, planning policy guidance must be strengthened to make it easier for councils to refuse consent for building on flood plains or on sites where development would make flooding more likely because of run-off problems. We must bear it in mind that one of the characteristics of climate change is that rainfall is becoming more violent and we more often experience high winds. I sympathise with the concerns of the Environment Agency about wrongly located development continuing to make the risks of flooding greater. The harm that such development inflicts is not confined to new buildings but can cause problems for existing properties, and in the end it may be the taxpayer who picks up the tab.
	Planning guidance can also contribute positively to cutting carbon dioxide emissions by encouraging development at or near railway stationsa point that I made in a speech just before Christmas. It is a scandal that we have failed, under public and private ownership models, to make better use of the huge brownfield development opportunities that exist around many stations. Starter homes or commercial and retail development on those sites would be beneficial environmentally and in other ways. Planning agreements should ensure that such developments provide funds to improve stations in order to bring them into the 21st century and increase the capacity of the railways at a time of record demand. Those gains could be obtained without taxpayers or travellers having to contribute a penny. Development around stations would offer people more chances to choose environmentally friendly transport options. The Government's role is not to coerce people out of their cars but to facilitate those choices.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend raises a serious point. Some innovative planning is taking place whereby affordable housing is being built on top of supermarkets, and there is no reason why we should not use our stations more imaginatively by doing the same thing. That would be a sustainable way of going forward, because people's housing would be near to the transport that they were going to use.

Tim Yeo: My hon. Friend is right. The situation is nothing short of scandalous. Those of us who regularly travel by train are aware of how many opportunities there are around the country to use stations and the land immediately around them for development purposes.
	The four changes in domestic policy that I mentioned would add up to a coherent programme to get Britain back on track. With evidence of Britain's determination to tackle climate change at home, we would once more be able to resume our leadership on the issue abroad. Internationally, we should have three aims. First, and most obviously, the Prime Minister should press President Bush much harder, not only on Kyoto but on climate change generally. It is painfully clear that the Prime Minister will not say boo to a goose when it comes to President Bush. What on earth has Britain got in return for its unquestioning support of the United States in the past three years? It does not appear that our influence has been exercised over any important policy area.
	Secondly, as the hon. Member for Lewes said, Britain should be more active in reaching out to those elements in the United States who do take climate change seriously. Some states, industries and companies are clear-sighted enough to see that climate change cannot be ignored. They realise that whether or not the United States ratifies Kyoto, there are advantages to America in taking part in emissions trading, in helping to shape the post-Kyoto framework, and in developing the technologies that will lead to the win-win situation of continued economic growth and steadily falling emissions.
	Thirdly, although it is crucial to engage the United States in the process, it is equally crucial to bring China and India on board. One way in which Britain could put pressure on the United States is to start negotiating international standards with China and India. I am pleased that the Government's chief scientist has recently been in Bangalore. The growth of those giant economies inevitably means that more energy will be consumed, and in particular coal power. The challenge is to accelerate progress towards minimising the environmental impact of that consumption.
	The post-Kyoto framework should have the positive aim of promoting climate stability. The achievement of that aim will not harm business or slow down economic growth, nor will it impede the progress that developing countries make towards greater prosperity. Indeed, climate change is the very background against which developing countries will grow sustainably, and the only background against which that growth will be secure.
	I regret that the Liberal Democrats chose to insert a point-scoring phrase into their motion, because without it I would have been able to give the motion my support. However, I can and do confirm that the Conservative party is wholly committed to the actions needed at home and abroad to achieve climate stability. When we were last in government, we took those actions. While we are in opposition, we will support the Government when they propose policies to promote climate stability, and a future Conservative Government will have those policies right at the top of their agenda.

Desmond Turner: I am glad that the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) initiated the debate. It started off happily and I was pleased that a consensus was developing across the Chamber, but it has unfortunately gone a little sour since the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) entered the fray.
	Climate change is a bigger challenge than the fate or fortunes of any political party and must be tackled through consensus. We cannot simply switch policies if we are to be effective. Lestperish the thought the Government change, we must ensure that we have policies that will be consistently supported and developed. In this context, politicians need to grow up in a way that they never have before.
	An international consensus is also required and if we can achieve a solid cross-party consensus in this place, we can provide some international leadership. This country has much of the expertise and many of the technologies necessary to begin to tackle the problem. We are fortunate in our climatologists, who are among the world leaders, if not the world leaders. Thanks to them, we have virtually reached a scientific consensus on climate change, although not necessarily on its scale or timing, because that involves so many variables that it is impossible to be totally precise about whether a given level of carbon dioxide concentration will produce an elevation in temperature of 2 or as high as 11. It is simply too multifactorial, but it is abundantly clear that further changes will occur. We would prefer to avoid any scenario because it would have serious consequences with which we would have to deal.
	Our climatologists have been responsible because, although the range of scenarios that they have presented to us so far has been scary enough, they have carefully avoided invoking the apocalyptic. We must remember that an apocalyptic event happened at least once in geological history. The seas boiled and the methane hydrates on the floor of the oceans were released. The temperatures rocketed and approximately 90 per cent. of the species on earth died. That could still happen, for example, if we lost the Amazonian rain forest altogether, perhaps through fire, which is possible, and the methane hydrates were released again. In that case, a future for the whole human race, let alone any other species, would be almost impossible. Although that is an apocalyptic scenario, it is possible and we should never forget it.
	We cannot assume that temperature will increase gradually and that the sea level will creep up by a centimetre every decade. Perhaps we could cope with that, but frightening step changes along the way, with which we could not cope, could also occur. Indeed, if we do not take sufficient action now, and if we retain the business-as-usual model, some of the mildest climate change scenarios would lead to the exposure of thousands of millions of people to danger through flood, famine and disease.
	The question is therefore not whether we should act but how soon and how radically we can act. We must be radical about the matter. Descending into petty party political bickering about who did what is therefore pathetic and we should not do it.

John Barrett: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that those who are most likely to be the victims of climate change are least likely to have influence over gas emissions, and that that is why it is essential to play our part in international discussions about future emissions with emerging industrial nations such as China and India?

Desmond Turner: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, with which I agree. We cannot say, We've had all the fun with fossil fuels but we're going to stop using them now and you mustn't use them. You're going to have to stay poor and undeveloped. That will not wash. As part of our international aid programme, we should put funds into developing and distributing simple, low-cost and low-carbon technologies that are usable in the developing world. I am happy that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office initiated such a programme, which is now an international programme, about two years ago. It is under way but it needs to be developed a great deal more. Our country is fortunate in having technologies that can be applied in that work.
	I am happy that the Government are reviewing their climate change policies. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would not claim that our policies were currently absolutely right. They need to be overhauled, partly because they were developed when it was a battle to convince people that climate change was real. Now the battle is tackling it and we need a step change in the effectiveness of our policies. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Agri-environment can tell us more about the review. I hope that more hon. Members will contribute to the review in a cross-party and collaborative manner. I would even embrace ideas from the hon. Member for South Suffolk.
	The Government must review their policies and reach some consensus. They should also examine the coherence of policies. It is not ideal for DEFRA to have responsibilities for climate change, while responsibility for energy, which is one of the key elements in tackling climate change, is split between DEFRA and the Department of Trade and Industry, the keeper of the key fiscal instrumentsthe Treasuryis a separate Department, and the Department for Transport is also involved. At least four major Departments need to work together cohesively to make a future strategy stick. That might mean a change of culture. I do not mean that in a political sense because politicians can speak to each other happily, but we all know that civil servants have a less good record of cross-departmental collaboration. I therefore suggest to my hon. Friend that we also need to consider our civil service structures for underpinning, delivering and developing climate change policy, because we could do much more on that.

Norman Baker: I am attracted by the idea that my parliamentary next-door neighbour presents. Is he drawn to our proposal, as he should logically be, for a merged department of environment, energy and transport, precisely to deal with the problems that he identifies?

Desmond Turner: I do not want to comment one way or the other on any specific structure. I simply say that we should examine the structures and ensure that, whatever they are, they have an overarching brief to work together. There must be a clear Cabinet responsibility at the top to ensure that co-ordination of climate change policy happens on the ground.
	It is good that the Government have adopted the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution's 60 per cent. target by 2050, but I agree with David King that that is not sufficient to deal with the position that confronts us. We must remember that CO 2 is not the only greenhouse gas. It has been established that atmospheric CO 2 emissions were no higher than today's when the climate change event in the Eocene occurred. The levels of nitrous oxide and methane did the damage. Other greenhouse gases can be just as threatening as CO 2 . We therefore need to examine the spread of greenhouse gases and control the emissions of them all.
	We need vigorous action now. We cannot afford to wait 20 years. The insurance industry would endorse that because claims against damage through exceptional weather events have rocketed. There is a clear patternlogarithmic growthin those claims. There is plenty of evidence that we cannot afford not to take action. If we do not, the consequences will be expensive to the economy. We need to invest more, but we do not have to adopt a hair-shirt economic policy to do so. I see no intrinsic reason why renewable energy should be any more expensive than current generation technologies, once it has got over the initial development hump and is fully developed. Likewise, energy conservation investment will pay for itself.
	We have the technical potential to reduce CO 2 emissions by 80 per cent. quite easily, and by rather more as far as domestic and industrial energy, land transport and electricity generation are concerned. Air transport remains a problem. People remember the Hindenburg disaster and we would probably have difficulty getting people on to a hydrogen-fuelled plane. Hydrogen is so light that, even in liquid form, the amount required for a transatlantic flight would fill the entire fuselage, leaving no room for the passengers. Anyone with any good ideas on how to make hydrogen storage much more compact should go to the DTI and ask for a development grant, because cracking that problem would be one of the greatest services that they could provide. The path to a non-carbon futureor a virtually non-carbon future, at any ratewould then become possible.

Colin Challen: In this fairly consensual debate, we have heard that onshore wind farms present a problem. I agree with my hon. Friend that we can probably meet a great deal of our energy needs through renewables, but how would he address the growing resistance to onshore wind farms? Does he agree that one way would be to address their ownership structures? We could, for example, have community wind farms and micro-generation. In that way, people would have a vested interest in going down that route.

Desmond Turner: My hon. Friend is right, but I would also point out that onshore wind farms are a stop-gap. Offshore wind farms are much more publicly acceptable than their onshore counterparts and have better wind opportunities. We will get more electricity out of the offshore wind turbines than out of those on land. But wind power is only a stop-gap. We can only go so far with it, partly because of its unpredictability. We cannot rely on it for baseline load. It is also intrinsically expensive because its load factor is so poor, at 30 per cent. or less. We have, however, the most magnificent energy resources round our coasts in the form of wave and tide power, which has the raw energy potential to provide double the amount of electricity that we currently generate in a year.

Alistair Carmichael: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the flaw in the Conservatives' argument is that tidal and wave resources are, by their very nature, in the more remote, peripheral communities that do not have proper grid connections and that they would get that connection only if they were allowed to develop the intermediate technology, namely wind power?

Desmond Turner: I do not disagree with that. I would not for a moment wish to inhibit the development of wind power. The Government have agreed that the grid has to be rewired and we intend to do that. Yes, that is where the resources are, and we should use them. The Government are already putting resources into wave and tidal technology, through the DTI. I want to see more resources going into it, and I think that they inevitably will.
	I agree with Opposition Members' comments about the importance of fiscal measures. We have heard some chat about that today. We need to look carefully at fiscal measures because, in a market economy such as the one that we have to work in, they are the key to driving behaviour and making things work. We have an opportunity, as part of the climate change review, to overhaul those fiscal measures.
	The hon. Member for Lewes mentioned the carbon tax. I have long been an advocate of carbon taxation, not simply as a tax being used to take money, but as part of a continuum involving a carbon credit that could be invested in the development of renewables. That has been expanded on by the most recent report from the Science and Technology Committee, which I recommend to hon. Members. Ministers have already read it and I hope that they will look at it again as part of the climate change review.
	The main message is that there are many things that we can and absolutely must do. We must do them together because we cannot afford to waste time squabbling unnecessarily. We must agree that, for the sake of the future of the human race, we have to act quickly and with determination. Even if it costs a bit now, the payback in the years to come will be well worth it.

Sue Doughty: I want to look at a number of issues relating to the need for a co-ordinated approach to mitigating the effects of climate change. The first is the security implications of climate change. During the past 12 months, we have been developing a greater understanding of the impact of climate change on the security of countries across the globe, and of the potential for climate change to increase the inequalities between the haves and the have-nots, with the consequential insecurity that that would bring.
	I have taken quite an interest in this matter, and it worries me that we still need greater Government co-ordination in this regard. The Minister will recall that, in March 2004, I asked the Secretary of State what assessment she had made of the national security implications of climate change. The Minister responded on her behalf, saying that the Government were
	carrying out internal assessments to identify how policy and operational responsibilities in all Departments could be affected by climate change. This process is currently reporting, and has included both the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office . . . Some of the potential linkages between climate change and security include pressure on food and water resources and energy supplies, which in turn . . . may contribute to the causes of migration . . . and conflict.[Official Report, 10 March 2004; Vol. 418, c. 1534W.]
	I followed that up by asking when we were going to see the report, and the Minister replied that it would be later in 2004, and that copies would be placed in both Libraries. I asked a member of the Library staff about this yesterday, and, having consulted DEFRA, they told me that the information would not be available until April or May this year. I believe that the Minister and the Secretary of State are concentrating on climate change, and I certainly would not suggest that they and their Department are not putting an enormous amount of effort into the matter. We know, however, that climate change is not only the responsibility of the Department that deals with the environment. It is a shared responsibility right across the Cabinet.
	When I asked how many people in the Ministry of Defence were working on identifying the national security implications of climate change, I was told:
	Staff working on this do so as part of their wider duties and consequently it is not possible to quantify the numbers of staff involved.[Official Report, 19 April 2002; Vol. 420, c. 10W.]
	Is anyone working on it? Are enough people working on it? In times of instability, this is becoming an increasingly important issue. It will perform a key function in supporting the Prime Minister's leadership role on climate change. In the war against terrorism, climate change cannot be ignored. I hope that that information will be provided so that when he and the Secretary of State are negotiating with the United Statesas we know they are doingwe are able to give them more information to push that point.
	We must understand that we need adaptation strategies in the face of climate change, and I hope that those strategies will not include increased spending on defence, but will focus on dealing with climate change. We have a choice to make about how much we spend on defence because we have failed to deal with climate change. Other areas of defence are outside the scope of this debate and I will not comment on those.

Malcolm Bruce: Is it not an interesting fact that at the heart of the conflict between Palestine and Israel the single biggest issue to be resolved is who controls the water supply? It is predicted that the main wars of this century are likely to be fought over water because of the pressures of climate change.

Sue Doughty: I thank my hon. Friend for that very helpful contribution. Only this week, we heard about the potential for conflict over the Nile waters and the sources of that river.
	We are aware that Sagarmatha national park in the Himalayas is at risk. Glacial lakes are melting, which has an impact on local communities because the water flows down on to the low-lying flood plains. Communities there rely partially on tourism and partially on their normal way of life, which includes the glaciers and the natural beauty of the Himalayas that so many people go to see. That impact threatens their whole way of life and there is a real fear in lakeside communities that those lakes will burst. That would be a catastrophe.
	Major changes to the Arctic and the way of life of the Inuit people have been reported by the WWF, and the British Antarctic Survey has commented on the thinning of the icecaps and its implication for sea levels. The WWF website has a very useful half-minute summary: global temperatures have risen by 2oC in the past 150 years; 228 million people are now at risk from malaria; starvation affects 12 million people; 2 million people are short of fresh water; millions are forced to move inland due to coastal flooding; and thousands of species have become extinct in the past 50 years and we know that many more will do so in the next 50. This is not a criticism of current Ministers at all, but the website comments on the fact that Ministers did not take action 50 years ago. I do not know the source for that information.
	We are experiencing extreme weather conditions: since Christmas there have been floods in Carlisle and in Scotland. There were hurricanes in Florida last year, which do not just damage properties and cause loss of life, but have a huge financial cost that must be recognised. Insurance claims after the hurricanes in Florida could reach $20 billion. That is a huge sum, and an example of the sums we mean when we talk about investing to save.
	Closer to home there is more that we could do. On housing, we agree that we need more homes for people to live in. There are massive increases in the house building programme in the south-east, but we could improve the environmental quality of that programme. Members of Parliament in many parts of the south-east disagree with the Government's calculations on the number of homes needed, their location and how the cake will be divided up. Local authorities have to deal with that problem here and now, and they are already defining guidelines for development that must be sustainable and have Government support, because there are huge opportunities to make sustainable improvements through the housing that we are planning and designing for the future.
	If we are talking about sustainable communities, we must ask what that means. It is very curious that we are unable to find out how the Government define sustainable communities. Everyone in the Chamber today would agree about definitions of sustainability and environmental sustainability, but we do not see the word environment flowing through into the definition of sustainable communities. Those house-building programmes bring huge beneficial opportunities such as district heating schemes and combined heat and power. However, after Christmas, the Environmental Audit Committee pointed out in its review of housing:
	We regret that in the case of housing the Department (DEFRA) seems to have been sidelined.
	There are opportunities, however. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has a draft planning policy statement, PPS1, but it does not recognise the need to ensure that development occurs within environmental limits, as well as other sustainability measures. It does not recognise the need for the precautionary principle for environmental sustainability. Does that matter? Of course it does, because emissions from the housing sector are significant: current levels of such emissions are about 40 megatons of carbon a year. Current plans could reduce that to 30 megatons a year, which is an improvement, but when one looks at Government emission reduction targets for the UK as a wholefrom 153.2 megatons of carbon a year in 2000 to 65 megatons in 2050one sees that a reduction of 10 megatons will not be enough.
	The houses we are planning to build now will be in place in 2050. It is important to note that housing does not go away. The foundations that we lay now, and their environmental impact, will be with us in 2050. That makes it sound as though we have a lot of time to get our act together, but melting icecaps and glaciers show that that problem is here now. We think of 2050 as the end of the line, but we have to seize the opportunity now. Considering what we could be facing, poor environmental performance in buildings will be a major contributor to carbon emissions in 2050, and the sector, as the Environmental Audit Committee report pointed out, could contribute more than 55 per cent. of UK carbon emissionsnearly double the current contribution.
	In combination with aviation, that will substantially undermine the Government's ability to meet their reduction targets. We need to ensure that we stay on target, and set tougher targets, if we are to make the difference that will call a halt to climate change, which is desperately important.
	Some areas that the Government are working on, and their change of heart on aviation emissions, are very welcome, but the predict and provide approach must be managed alongside what we can do about aviation emissions. Combined with the effects of building, they will cause a major difficulty. We need to conduct an urgent review now of sustainable construction methods to make an impact on not only the finished buildings and their carbon emissions, but the pollution that will arise as part of the building process.
	I touched on flooding earlier. To return to the macro aspect, there are plans to build across the south-east. A village in my constituency has a road with a number of bungalows; it is on a wide flood plain. There is no big river, but we know that each of those properties is being expanded into a house, and such things as conservatories are being built. As the water runs down the hills into the village, instead of it being soaked up by the clay, people sometimes find 2 in of water lying on their lawn. In fact, people are giving up lawns in this village and growing vegetables because of the impact of the water. That is a very small example, but it shows how we are not getting to grips with this increased and sudden rainfall that we are experiencing so often.
	How much worse will the impact be on the Thames gateway as we build on it and there is a displacement of water? We have no plan; we have no clarity about what is the purpose of Thames gateway development. On the one side, we are told that it is providing housing for a regenerated community, but Sir John Egan said to the Environmental Audit Committee that the development is intended to house people commuting into London. Are we therefore building a development with no clear idea about how people will commute into London? Will the railway infrastructure be in place or will they get into their cars? Although the Conservatives are saying that cleaner cars are goodwe all agree with that, and cars have their place, but not every placestationary cars in a traffic jam are no solution to climate change problems. We must do much more. It is sad that the Conservatives, who presided over the undermining of the railways, are now trying to claim the moral high ground. I wish that they had done something about it at the time.
	When we examine the potential for flooding in the Thames gateway, on which many people have commented, we must ask who will insure the properties. For how long will the Association of British Insurers bail people out when things go wrong, or do the Government plan to be the insurer of last resort? I know that that is not currently part of their plans.

Elliot Morley: I get surprised sometimes about the focus that people put on flood risk in relation to the Thames gateway development. I do not dispute that it is an issue, but the defences in that area are at one in 100 standard, which is extremely high. The Thames gateway design includes green space, for example, which can also be used as sustainable urban drainage, and the plans include the extension of the rail network so that there are public transport links to the new development. A major new development always provides an opportunity to build in sustainable features from the very beginning, and that is certainly the intention with the Thames gateway.

Sue Doughty: I am grateful to the Minister for his intervention, but other commentators do not share his confidence about flooding. Only recently, I was at a seminar with developers who expressed severe concern. At least the Thames gateway has infrastructure planned. What about other places, such as Milton Keynes, where not so much infrastructure will be provided, and places such as Guildford, which is subjected to infill? Displaced water will also be a consequence of such developments, and I would expect to see even more flooding as a result.
	We support the proposal of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister that the Environment Agency should be a statutory consultee on planning applications. The Conservatives, however, would cut the Environment Agency. When will they comment on those proposals and understand their environmental implications?
	The hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) mentioned methane. This is a subject close to the Minister's heart and mine, and I urge him to ramp up efforts to reduce the amount of biodegradable waste going into landfill. Please can we make sure, with urgency, that councils have the tools that they need to assess levels of home composting and so on, and to make plans to encourage it? Such small steps will make a significant difference to methane emissions.
	Leadership on climate change is needed. We had a peace dividend as the old Soviet empire crumbledwe now want a climate dividend. That opportunity is available, but only if we get our own house in order and exercise real leadership with allies such as the United States, as well as European allies. As polluters, we must recognise that not only do our people suffer as climate change takes hold but others do, too. It is strange, but on a mild day such as today, instead of people saying, What a lovely dayit is mild in Guildford, where the flowers are coming out in my gardenperhaps they should say a little more often, Why is it so mild at the beginning of February? We must recognise that the problem is here and now, and act on it here and now.

Alan Simpson: I shall try to be as brisk as possible, partly to allow other Members into the debate, but also because I want to make several points that I hope will upset the apple-cart in relation to the consensus of free trade assumptions on tackling climate change problemsthe consensus that trade liberalisation and a free-for-all are somehow compatible with realising many of the goals that Members have identified today.
	The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee has just returned from a Brussels visit, on which we met a large number of Commissioners who were as passionate as any Member who has spoken today about climate change. Those Commissioners were brilliantuntil we talked to other Commissioners with interests in trade, who were clearly running with a completely different agenda. When push came to shove, the environment got the shove. That is the crisis that we must face. It is a crisis of political leadership as much as a crisis of climate change.

Alistair Carmichael: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the same contradiction is at the heart of domestic energy policy? On the one hand, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Department of Trade and Industry say that they want to promote renewables development, while on the other, the mad monks at the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets say that we can do that only within the framework of a competition-driven structure that excludes renewables development.

Alan Simpson: I accept that that contradiction exists in government, but I want to widen the pictureI believe that the contradiction exists in every party represented in Parliament today. We need to examine the contradictions in each of our own houses. I would love us to fight a general election on climate change. I would love us to say that the biggest issue that will affect the whole of our lives, and the entirety of our children's lives, is climate change, and that we want to be in dispute with each other about which of us can tackle it most seriously and rapidly. We will not do that, however. The general election will be fought on which leader is the most ugly, which party's set of policies are the most contradictory, who are the biggest bunch of scoundrels, and who can be toughest on immigrants. That will miss the big challenges.
	Bob Dylan once wrote in a song:
	You don't need a weather man  To know which way the wind blows.
	In the same way, we do not need a panel of scientists to tell us about climate change. Let us ask Munich Re, the biggest reinsurance company on the planet, which says that, on current trends, the global economy could be bankrupt by 2050 because of the sheer cost of making good the damage done as a result of climate change. That is the warning bell about which each of us needs to think hard. What is required is a paradigm shift. We need to change how we think about the way we live in the world and how we think about economics.
	In scientific terms, we are told that we must limit temperature rise to 2C higher than it was in pre-industrial times. The terminology that scientists use is that we cannot go above 400 parts per million of carbon dioxide in the atmospherewe are now at about 380 parts per million. In layperson's terms, the most important fact is that, on current trends, we would exceed the 400 parts per million figure by about 2015. When Professor Sir David King came to talk to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, he was clear about the time scale and said that climate change was a much bigger threat than terrorism. As for the 2015 timetable, that is not when the world will end but when, scientists tell us, we will be locked into irreversible change. This is the period in which we can do something.
	Of course this issue concerns more than ourselves. The consequences of climate change will hit the developing world worst and we shall see a huge increase in drought, disease, environmental devastation and mass migration. Some of those problems will come to our shores second-hand, but others will come to us first-hand. At the recent conference in Exeter, the Hadley centre was quick to point out that one of the contradictions of global warming is that we will also experience global cooling. The prospect of the north Atlantic drift ceasing has now reached 50:50. It is not an immediate prospect, but we know that the north Atlantic drift has been weakening over the decades and the consequences are inevitable cooling. The Hadley centre said that on the north Atlantic coast, there may be winter cooling of 5 C, which means temperatures lower than those in the little ice age in the 17th and 18th centuries, when the Thames froze over. We are not well equipped to deal with that change.
	In addition, sea levels will be affected by the melting of the Greenland and west Antarctica icecapssomething we once did not believe possibleand may rise by up to 18ft. Some coastal constituencies will be affected by that more imminently than my constituency, but the prospect of representing Nottingham sur mer is not entirely ludicrous.

Desmond Turner: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Alan Simpson: I am afraid I will not accept any more interventions, as Members are queuing up to make speeches.
	The erratic weather patterns that we have to deal with are a consequence of climate change. Professor King pointed out to the Committee that we must think about how we manage the prospect of flooding and drought in the same month. We are the beneficiaries of an enormously generous piece of over-engineeringthe Victorian sewerage system. No one would build drains of that capacity now, yet most of our cities cannot deal with flash flooding. We therefore need a huge rethink on our engineering programme. At the recent Exeter conference, it was said that even a five-year delay could have a critical impact on our ability to tackle the problem.
	I have five suggestions about what we should do. The good news is that a fantastic array of sustainable technologies are coming on to the market. I am incorporating many of them in a derelict place in the middle of Nottingham that will eventually generate 50 per cent. more energy than it consumes. Such developments are exciting, but in 2001, the Prime Minister set aside 5 million so that renewable energy pilot schemes could be targeted on the poorest housing in the country. Sadly, however, since then, the Department of Trade and Industry has not been able to get a single pilot off the ground. There are 2 million households living in fuel poverty. I asked the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister how many properties in the UK's housing stock would meet SAP 65, the minimum standard for establishing a framework to address fuel poverty. On 20 January, I was told that
	16 per cent. of the housing stock meets or exceeds SAP 65.[Official Report, 20 January 2005; Vol. 429, c. 1044W.]
	That shows how behind we are in tackling things.
	How can we establish a programme that develops the resources and policy changes to address that problem? First, we need a windfall tax on oil and gas producers. Early-day motion 504 explains that they have enjoyed at least 5 billion in excess profits upstream as a result of increased prices, and I am told that it may be as much as 9 billion. The public and the Government should take a scoop of those profits and put them into renewables. Secondly, as some people believe in market solutions, we must change the market rules. I have recently had a number of rows with developers in my own city, as not one of them has put up buildings that self-generate energy or recycle their own water. They are not required to do so, so if we want such initiatives we must change the concept of building in our society. We should set market rules under which people have obligations so that, for example, they cannot put up a building on a flood plain unless they build in a reservoir capacity. There are cities on the planet that are already doing so, and in some countries developers are required to incorporate self-generation in the design of buildings. We do not have such requirements, because we let people build on the cheap. We steal today from the prospects of tomorrow.
	Thirdly, we have an absurd approach to energy markets. Not a single energy company in the land will talk about its business plan for selling less. There is a simple way of tackling that: we change the rules to allow companies to sell conservation rather than consumption. They could sell packages of home warmth in long-term supply packages, to stimulate the consumption of less.
	Fourthly, on international commitments, the time has come to scrap the World Trade Organisation and replace it with a world environment organisation. The criteria for assessment would be produced by sustainability audits in which we looked at the patterns of global trade. We must ask ourselves how much of today's trade consists of water sequestration by the north from the south. How many food miles result in carbon dumping on the planet? To what extent are long-term food contracts built on assumptions about the intensification of agriculture, whereas we should be looking at localisation and sustainability.
	A number of Members have said that we must focus on the USA, but I agree with the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Barrett) that it is more important to look at China. The Chinese Government have guaranteed their population that within the next 10 years every family with one child will have one car, shifting car ownership from 33 per 1,000 to 333 per 1,000. The earth would suffocate under that programme, which is not an unreasonable one. The trouble is that we do not ask what sort of vehicles are being made available in developing world markets.
	Finally, to address the problem we need to consider a gift relationship in future, rather than one of exploitation. The history of the last century is one in which we dumped on the developing world the products and practices that we banned in our own land, calling it aid or development. We need a gift relationshipTitmuss talked about it in terms of blood transfusion or the blood donor service in the UKthat is writ large on a global scale and scripted out in environmental terms. If we act selflessly in gifting the technology to others and ourselves, we have a chance of creating an environment fit for our children to live and breathe in. If we do not, the free trade follies that constantly push the environmental agenda to the sidelines of policy will destroy the planet. We will not achieve sustainable economics, and instead will have a world that is driven by no economics at all.
	As I said, I would love political parties to fight the next election on the issue of who has the best environmental record and programme. The real question is whether any of the parties in the House have the courage to occupy a platform on which our children's lives depend.

Simon Thomas: I am grateful for being called to speak immediately after that invitation from the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson), as there is one political party that will make climate change a priority at the election. I agreed with almost everything that he said, and I can assure him that he will sympathise with many things in our manifesto. I am afraid, however, that people will not have a chance to vote for us in England.
	I am very pleased indeed that the Liberal Democrats have called for this Opposition day debate. I acknowledge that they have used such debates to introduce such matters in the House, whereas the Government have been rather remiss in providing debates on climate change. The usual suspects are in the Chamber. [Interruption.] Indeed, people can see for themselves where there are gaps on the Benches. We have reached consensus on the science of climate change, but we do not have consensus on the political tasks needed to deal with the problem. I shall get the political bit over before I address more consensual matters. If any party, MP or member of a party thinks that we can achieve a carbon-free future without using wind energy they are shutting the door on a solution to climate change. Anyone who thinks that that is a realistic prospect will let down severely the people of this country, the environment and future generations.
	The Conservative party has said no to any wind farms whatever in Wales. That is totally unsustainable and I simply cannot accept it as a policy with which to tackle climate change. It is possible to discuss the right mix and the need to invest in wave, solar and other forms of renewable technology, but it is impossible to talk seriously about achieving the 20 per cent. renewable target without including both onshore and offshore wind power.
	I also have to say that there have been no significant wind farm proposals for Wales that the Liberal Democratswhether a parliamentary candidate in my own constituency, a Member of Parliament or an Assembly Memberhave failed to oppose. Indeed, Liberal Democrats of some significance and seniority have opposed all those plans. The hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) is not in his place now, but I acknowledge the important work that he has done on these matters. I hope that he can lead his party in securing a more proactive acceptance of the need to use wind on our journey towards the carbon-free future. The wonder of wind energy is that, if we do not need it in 20 or 30 years' time, we can take the structures down and leave the environment as it wasvirtually, though not completely, unchanged. That aspect is so different from other forms of energy generation that we need to swallow the pill. I am prepared, and have long been prepared, to swallow it in my own constituency in Wales, and I hope that other parties will, too.
	Let us consider what is happening with the environment at present. The public at large, newspapers and the media tend to talk about climate change as if it is something that is going to happen, but it is important to emphasise that it is happening now. We are already very close to the tipping pointsthe points at which climate change becomes disastrous. A UK voluntary network is run by the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, and it observes changes throughout the calendar year. It is easy to see from that research over the past 30 years that spring is definitely arriving earlier. I had roses in my garden at Christmas, and a fig tree that is starting to shoot.
	We all know what is happening, but it is good to have confirmation. Swallows are arriving a week earlier than they did 30 years ago, and butterflies are also appearing much earlier. One consequence is that species, particularly bird species, are hatching after the glut of caterpillars has gone. The birds are unable to capitalise on the caterpillars, as it were, that have already been and gone in the early spring. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds has provided figures, and it puts in context the occasional bird strike against the wind farms. That happens occasionally, and there are sometimes bird strikes against my house. At least one bird a year dies flying into my windowsmore than died in the wind farm recently in Ceredigion. The occasional bird strike has to be placed in the context of mass bird extinction under climate change.
	Within Wales during the past 14 months, the valley of Conwy alone has had three serious breaches of its flood defences. The villages in the valley had three occurrences during the last 14 months that should happen only once every 20 years. Furthermore, the key statistics for Wales, published only a fortnight ago, clearly show a 1C rise in average temperatures over the past three years compared with the 19601990 period. That is important.
	The latest report on climate change has come from the international climate change taskforce, chaired by the former Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, and I was pleased to hear him repudiateon Radio 4 when he launched the reportmany of his transport decisions. Let us hope that the current Department for Transport will follow suit. The report states:
	Above the 2 degree C level, the risks of abrupt, accelerated, or runaway climate change also increase. The possibilities include reaching climatic tipping points leading, for example, to the loss of the West Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets.
	The hon. Member for Nottingham, South made a similar point. The report goes on to
	refer to
	the transformation of the planet's forests and soils from a net sink of carbon to a net source of carbon,
	recommending that at least 25 per cent. of our electricity should be generated from
	renewables.
	Just a week after the publication of that report came the report from the British Antarctic Survey, showing that the west Antarctic ice sheet is indeed in danger of collapse. If an international taskforce argues that 2 is the tipping point, and if the figures for Wales show that we are already 1 higher, we are already very close indeed to some disastrous changes taking place within the United Kingdom. That demonstrates why political parties should be placing these issues on top of the agenda, irrespective of whether the press want to talk about that in the context of posters, images or dirty campaigning. This issue should, in 2005, be the focus of all our political campaigning. We must do what we can in our constituencies, but hon. Members will know how difficult it sometimes is to get these essential messages across.
	One important issue that has not been mentionedwe have mainly talked about political and public responsibilityis business and corporate responsibility. It is crucial to understand that we all have to pull together in tackling climate change. We have already heard a little about Shell and BP and their massive profitsbigger, together, than the entire budget for Wales in a year. Let us consider Shelldescribed by the hon. Member for Lewes as one of the better companies on the grounds that it had accepted the science of climate change. The company posted massive profits, yet is still asking for UK Export Credits Guarantee Department and European Bank for Reconstruction and Development support to help it develop oil and gas pipelines in Sakhalin in Russia. Shell is still involved in gas flaring in Nigeria, which produces more greenhouse gas emissions than the rest of sub-Saharan Africa put together. These goodies, then, have accepted the science of climate change, but continue to exploit developing countries by using technology that we would not allow in this country, producing greenhouse gas emissions that offset any savings that the companies are making in this country.
	To be honest, I am not certain that a windfall tax is the answer, but something has to be done to bring these companies to book and to ensure that their corporate social responsibility is dedicated to tackling climate change. They should use much of their massive profits to invest in other technologies. That is, after all, to the good of their shareholders in the long run.
	The Government have made some progress in respect of the overall basket of greenhouse gases, but as we have already heard, they are seriously short of the targets on CO2 reduction. Indeed, if current trends continue, the projection for 2010 suggests a reduction of 7.7 per cent., as compared with the Kyoto obligation of 12.5 per cent., the manifesto commitment of 20 per cent., and indeed the Prime Minister's own commitment given to the House in December of 14 per cent. That was the commitment that he gave to the leader of the Liberal Democrat party.
	It is also important to remember that the UK figures do not include aviation. It has been mentioned a couple of times in the debate, but needs to be emphasised. Aviation is not included in the national greenhouse gas inventories. If aviation were included, we would be talking about figures about 5 per cent. higher. I hope that the Minister will deal with the problem in his winding-up speech. I understand why international agreements mean that we cannot go ahead now and tax aviation fuel, but I also understand that it is possible to tax emissions. What are the Government doing in respect of emission taxation, which would help to drive better technology within the aviation industry without necessarily hugely increasing costs? The costs of the aviation industry need to be put on record. Research shows that the richer people in society are the ones who benefit from cheap flights, often to their second homes in Bayonne or the Navarre valley or wherever. Less well-off people do not benefit much from cheap flights.
	Climate change is a huge challenge for political parties and the political consensus in this country, but there are also huge opportunities. This island is the part of Europe with the greatest renewable energy resources. Our solar energy may not be so good, but the wind, wave and tidal energy available to us is very great. We could power the whole of western Europe with energy from wind. The installations would not look very nice, but we have that potential, and we need to start finding creative ways to benefit our communities in that way.
	For example, we could allow people to put small turbines on their homes. That would accommodate those who oppose wind farms. If we chose to do that, we should not make people fill out a 19-page form from Ofgem so that they could sell energy back to the network. Another possibility is to give council tax rebates to people who install renewable energy equipment in their homes. We should try to incentivise people in a different way. It is too complicated to convince people to go for the Clear Skies initiative. That is too remote: if we want people to choose renewable energy in their daily lives, we have to make it much easier for them.
	Time is short so I shall end with a myththe myth of Cantre'r Gwaelod. This Welsh folk tale harks back to a time when there was no sea between Wales and Ireland, and it is true that at one time the two countries were not separated by water. The relevant area was flooded as a result of the neglect of a politician, whose name has come down over the centuries. He was not called Blair or Howard, but Seithennen. If we politicians do not want future generations to think of us as the ones who neglected our environment, and if we do not want those future generations to live in caves remembering a time when a civilisation existed before the flood came, we need to be aware of the myths and stories of the past.
	Climate change is no myth. What is happening to our environment is no folk tale. We should work to ensure that our reputation in history is a good one and we are recalled with approbation. To do that, we must tackle climate change now.

Colin Challen: I shall make my contribution as brief as possible. I want to speak about the costs to business of environmental regulations. That is an especially important matter in the context of this debate.
	Sir Digby Jones gave evidence to the Environmental Audit Committee. What he said was very revealing. It is clear that he accepts that climate change is taking place. He supports contraction and convergence, even though the Confederation of British Industry is restless in the face of the costs that appear to be imposed on it by the Government. That complaint is reflected in the rather fallacious arguments of the Copenhagen consensus, whose members say that other problems should be dealt with first, as climate change is too expensive to deal with.
	The report entitled Cry Wolf has been referred to already this afternoon. Prepared by the International Chemical Secretariat on behalf of WWF, it shows how business lobby groups consistently have predicted excessive costs in relation to environmental regulation. For example, the directive from the former EEC on vehicle emission standards introduced the catalytic converter in the early 1990s, and industry experts said that fitting that equipment would cost an extra 600 per car. As it turned out, the extra cost was more in the region of 60.
	The report states:
	It led to smaller, cheaper cars being equipped with more sophisticated engines and fuel management technologies which in turn led to improved fuel efficiency in spite of the supposed fuel consumption penalty of the catalyst.
	It goes on to detail the new technology's indirect benefits. Some 12 years on from the introduction of catalytic converters, researchers this year calculated that the health benefits alone amounted to some 2 billion.
	Another example of the predictions made by business can be found in the introduction to amendments made to the US Clean Air Act 1990. The industry predicted that unbearable costs would be attached to those amendments. The maximum figure for those costs was $91 billion, although the real extra costs amounted to $26 billion. I admit that that is still a lot of money, but a White House study found that the changes had produced benefits worth $192 billion.
	There are so many other examples of the sort of predictions that business can come up with that I am very concerned at the impact that industrial lobby groups can have in getting regulations watered down. It is regrettable that our national allocation planpart of the EU's emissions trading schemeseems to have fallen victim to that process and as a result has become a bit more generous. Once again, industry seems to have been rewarded for crying wolf. It is time for those of us who take climate change seriously to cry foul.
	Under the UK's emissions trading scheme, industry received a windfall of around 200 million of taxpayers' money. I recommend that everyone read the slim Public Accounts Committee report on its inquiry into how the UK scheme operated, because it provides an insight into how the Government handled that innovation. There were teething problems and, as expected, money was thrown at it to get it going. Business benefited to the tune of 200 million, but it still cried foul when we tried to introduce more regulations and the climate change levy, which is business-neutral and should be kept and improved, if possible.
	Another issue that concerns me is grandfathering. Grandfathers are known as kindly, old gentlementhere may be one or two in the Chamberwho are blessed with wisdom, authority and far-sightedness. However, in the world of pollution controls and environmental regulation, grandfathering means that industry can claim that its old plant should be exempt from many controls. That is how George W. Bush approached the problem of oil industry pollution when he was governor of Texas: he gutted the Clean Air Act 1990, which had been amended by his father. Now, we want to grandfather future emissions based on industry growth expectations or predictions so that emissions from the growth can be accommodated without breaking the rules. Even if we have an effective emissions, trading scheme, it may allow for growth and emissions and I am sure that many people will find that odd. We should be looking for absolute reductions in emissions and I hope that we will strengthen the European scheme, include aviation, and introduce lower baselines than industry expects. We need to take a much tougher line.
	I welcome the report of the international climate change task force which was co-chaired by my right hon. Friend, the Member for Tyneside, North (Mr. Byers). Interestingly, the other co-chair was a Republican Senator, Olympia Snowe, which shows that some members of Mr. Bush's party are concerned enough to engage with the science, even if he is not. The report calls for immediate action, such as a twofold increase in research, development and demonstration of renewable energy technologies. It also calls for removal of barriers to the development of such industries and for the abolition of fossil fuel subsidies. I forget how many sisters we have left among the oil companies, but it is amazing that they are reporting such massive profits and still sharing in the $80 billion of subsidy.
	Another recommendation in the report is to build on the global climate change framework of both the United Nations framework convention on climate change and Kyoto. It refers to a new basis of equity and common, but differentiated, responsibilities. As someone who supports contraction and convergence, that is the meaning that I want to read into it, but I understand why its authors would not want to say that explicitly. However, the notion of equity is not ambivalent in the report. There is no equitable distribution of carbon emissions at present. The earth's capacity to absorb carbon is put at 3 billion tonnes, but our current emissions amount to around 6 billion tonnes, or 1 tonne for every member of the human race. In this country, we emit around 24 tonnes per household per annum and the figure is higher in the United States.
	Those statistics demonstrate the inequitable distribution of carbon emissions and pollution more generally. We need environmental equity as well as carbon emissions trading and so on. We need a cap and trade programme, and contraction and convergence is the name that we must give to it. We must link that battle with the battle against poverty. I hope to hear about that link more often in the speeches of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, because we are making the poor poorer with policies that do not tackle carbon emissions. Marginal agricultural land will become unusable, and drought, the failure of the Indian monsoon and so on will make the task of tackling poverty much more difficult. We must make that link.

Malcolm Bruce: This has been a good and lively debate. Indeed, we could have had a full-day debate on the subject and I urge the Government to consider that. After all, the Prime Minister has made it clear that he wants to make climate change central to our presidency of both the EU and the G8. This is the third debate initiated by the Liberal Democrats in this Parliament to ensure that we debate the environment, and the House should appreciate that we have done that in the limited time available to us for such debates. There is clearly plenty of scope for debate and many people want to contribute. It would help to inform the Government's approach if they gave us such opportunities, and I hope that the Minister will feed that back.

Mark Lazarowicz: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Malcolm Bruce: I am sorry, I do not have time. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman wants to intervene but I have only 10 minutes for my speech, and even so it will be impossible to summarise the whole debate.
	What has been interesting about the debate is that a variety of speeches have stressed that the science is incontrovertible, that time presses urgently and that we need radical measures that we should co-operate to support. The problem is that the Conservative party has not been fully part of that. We have heard only one speech from the Conservative Benches during the entire debate. Conservative Back Benchers have made some constructive interventions, but they were less than supportive of their Front-Bench policy, and they are no longer in the Chamber. That is a challenge, because we shall be unable to address the radical climate change policies that are needed if the Conservative party is not fully on board working with us.
	The Conservatives have suggested that they want to get rid of the climate change levy and would cut the Environment Agency's budget. They are going round the country campaigning energetically against wind energy while acting as a front for a nuclear power industry that has no economic case to make. Although I will accept some strictures from the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) on the activity of certain people, we should be clear that not every wind farm is ideally located and that planning issues are legitimate.
	As a party, the Liberal Democrats are clear that wind energy is crucial in the short term to meet the renewable energy targets that we have undertaken under Kyoto. As a Scottish Member, I can say that both our Ministers in the partnership Government in Edinburgh are up front in promoting and encouraging wind energy developments. Last week, I walked over a wind farm site in my constituency that will be generating electricity this summer. I have also supported a fairly controversial application that is going through the process. People who oppose wind energy in principle, or who in practice oppose every development, are actually setting themselves against addressing the climate change agenda. It is as simple as that. One cannot be in favour of dealing with that issue and oppose wind energy either in principle or in practice.

Mark Lazarowicz: rose

Malcolm Bruce: I know how long the hon. Gentleman has been waiting so I will give way, but I would be grateful if he could be quick.

Mark Lazarowicz: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. What he says about people being consistent must also apply to transport. As he knows, his party in Edinburgh is campaigning against the congestion charge, which is supported by environmental organisations, in that city. That is why Friends of the Earth said today:
	The Liberal Democrats in Edinburgh campaigning against a Yes vote are besmirching the national party's much-vaunted green credentials for the sake of short-term political opportunism.
	I do not want to embarrass the hon. Gentleman too much, but will he give a lead to his party in Edinburgh and tell it to stop opposing the congestion charge in that city?

Malcolm Bruce: It was a serious mistake to allow the hon. Gentleman to intervene. The fact is that our party in Edinburgh is critical of the scheme, not the principle, as he knows perfectly well. At the end of the day, with some debate and argument, we might come up with a scheme that we can both support. That is what debate is about.
	We have had our differences with the Government on some of the central issues on the climate change agenda. Sometimes we do not think that the Government are radical enough or that their schemes will work, but our debates are about how to come up with mechanisms that will deliver results. There are many aspects of what the Government are doingtheir commitment and the mechanismsthat we can and do support, but we need more mechanisms to bring on some of the alternative schemes that are not delivering at present. That is not a criticism of what the Government are doing, but a recognition that if there are too many schemes, things become too complicated and people do not respond.
	I urge the Minister to consider other aspects of renewables, such as timber. Our forestry industry could make a substantial contribution, yet it is being frustrated because a time horizon on co-firing could lead to a sudden drop in the market unless there is a recognition that we need both coppicing and off-cuts to become a long-term part of that process. Schemes that involve not electricity generation but space heating using renewable energy and more efficient systems must be encouraged.
	The Minister will be familiar with the fact that, with the right mechanisms to increase the promotion of energy efficiency, we could also produce a mechanism that could deliver the expansion of combined heat and power that we all want yet are failing to achieve. In fact, combined heat and power can do more than anything else to help us to meet our 2010 targets, yet its development has come to a complete halt. I urge the Government to think about such mechanisms.
	I am pleased that the Secretary of State spoke and engaged with us very seriously on this matter. It is important to make it clear that criticisms of the United States Administration's policies, particularly their hostility to the Kyoto protocol, should not blind anyone to the fact that the US has an enormous contribution to make towards solving the problem, both by changing its own behaviour and by providing the technology that it has the capacity to contribute. One of the encouraging things about the US is that it will make a substantial contribution to that technology regardless of the US Administration's policy.
	The hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson) rightly highlighted the problems of countries such as China and India and the need for us to balance their development with the contribution that we can make. That is another reason why I believe strongly that we must recognise the fact that nuclear power is not the solution. Anyone who tries to reactivate nuclear power is blocking the solution, as our past experience shows. The best way that I can describe the nuclear power industry is as a cuckoo in the nest: it sucks all the resources from every other aspect of energy to the point where no other innovation takes place.
	We have an overhang of nuclear waste clean-up costs estimated at 50 billion or more. We also have an overhang in that producing electricity with nuclear power costs us more than most other forms of electricity production. Those people who complain that the introduction of renewable energy costs a little more should recognise that the sums involved are a fraction of the extra costs that we have already paid for the nuclear industry, which never delivered any of its early promise. It is a question not of being anti-nuclear, but of acknowledging that the resources that nuclear power devours displace everything else. We simply cannot afford to be taken down that track.
	The Secretary of State also rightly made a pleaanother challenge to the Conservative party to come on board in this respectto stop talking about the science, about which we all agree, and to agree about the radical measures that we need to take together to deal with the fundamental problem. All political parties have had difficulties with high fuel costsa policy intended to discourage car use, or at least to try to connect the car with its environmental impact. That has caused considerable tensionsthe blockades embarrassed us allbut we have sustained that policy.
	The solution depends on all the major parties being prepared to stand together. The Conservative party's answer to congestion charging is to build more roads, but it exploits the difficulties of making such decisions. The reality is that strong cross-party support is required, particularly in the earlier stages. As the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) put it, the problem is so serious and severe that those radical measures, which may not appear popular, are so important that we should all be prepared to stand together to defend and justify them because bigger issues are at stake. So long as a significant political party is playing party politics in that scenario, it will undermine what we can achieve andas the hon. Member for Nottingham, South sayswe may have passed the point of no return by 2015. In 10 years' time, there may not be the capacity to introduce policies that can turn the tide.
	This is an important debate. I challenge the Government to recognise the fact that if they are seriouswe believe that they areabout their priorities for the G8 and the EU, they must have regular debates during the presidency to report back and give the House an opportunity to inform them and, indeed, perhaps back them up in their negotiations in those important forums. If things really are as serious as the Government say, they should take Parliament with them and not act simply as an Executive. Plenty of hon. Members are willing to support the Government in those difficult decisions, and they should give us the chance to tell them so.

Elliot Morley: We have had a good debate in which hon. Members have made excellent contributions. I agreed with a great deal of what was said, and the Government will support the motion because its thrust is exactly right.
	The hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) made a good case and highlighted the political aspects of climate change that we must all address. I also accept the points made by the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce). It would not be unreasonable for the Government to offer an opportunity to debate the G8 process and the Prime Minister's priorities, so I shall certainly discuss that with the business managers.
	The hon. Member for Gordon also made a good critique of the situation and raised important points about such matters as co-firing. Co-firing has excellent potential in relation to biomass and the timber industry, so we are keen to encourage it. Indeed, we are keen to encourage all forms of renewables and technologies, which include combined heat and power. The Government are examining the barriers to the development of CHP to find out how we can assist the situation. I accept the points that he made about nuclear power. The costs are enormous, so perhaps money could be better spent on other renewables at this stage of energy development. However, some of the problems with nuclear energy might be resolved down the line, which could lead to a different argument and changed priorities. We keep an open mind on the pros and cons of all technologies.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) made several excellent points about climate change and talked about the importance of fiscal measures. I accept his point and shall return to it. The hon. Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty) mentioned housing standards, which are important. We plan to raise housing standards and to apply and develop the new code that was produced by the sustainable buildings task group. I understand her point about the report on adaptation and apologise for its having slipped. That is partly due to the work that must be done across government, but it will be available in May.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson) talked powerfully about the international dimensions of the situation and mentioned building regulations. I am interested in the concept of white certificates when considering energy efficiency. We have a successful system of carbon trading and I look forward to the EU scheme. Of course, that is the trade in what are known as black certificates, because carbon is being sold. There is a suggestion that bodies that meet standards of energy efficiency and carbon reduction could receive white certificates, and I think that such a scheme would address the points that my hon. Friend made.
	The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) was right to talk about the realities of wind because wind is crucial if we are serious about meeting renewable targets. Given market preferences and the establishment of necessary technology, it is thought that wind will make up about 70 per cent. of renewables. If we turn our back on wind, we are turning our back on renewable targets. I do not know whether the Conservative party is turning its back on renewable targets, but that is the end result of rejecting wind.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Rothwell (Mr. Challen) said that industry predictions are often exaggeratedwe know of examples of that. He also talked about contraction and convergence. Such concepts have a considerable following, so we must examine them carefully, even though, like all such matters, they have pros and cons.
	There was, however, some misinformation in the debate. I am genuinely interested in some of the Conservative party's positions, but find them a little confusing. Since 1997, CO 2 has risen overall by about 0.4 per cent. It has gone up and down over the years. Other greenhouse gases, such as methane, nitrogen oxide, sulphur hexaflouride, hydrofluorocarbons and perfluorocarbons, have all decreased by about 6 per cent. since 1997. The UK and Denmark are the only two countries in the EU that are meeting their Kyoto targets. We have a good record on Kyoto, but if I were asked whether that was good enough, I would say no of course it is not, and that we have to do more to reduce greenhouse gases and CO 2 That is the whole point of the ongoing climate change review.
	On our commitment to a 20 per cent. reduction in CO 2 by 2010, the modelling is predicting that we will achieve a 14 per cent. dropfirst an increase and then a falling away. However, that does not take into account the impact of the European emissions trading scheme, which will be significant, or other measures that we may bring forward as a result of the climate change review. I think that we can get on track to achieve a 20 per cent. reduction by 2010, and it is our intention to do so.
	I am genuinely confused by some of the points that have been made in the debate, such as the Conservative proposal to abolish the climate change levy. The levy is revenue-neutral in the sector, because companies that are part of the scheme receive a reduction in employer's national insurance, and money goes to the Carbon Trust. The hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) gave an assurance that a future Conservative Administration would maintain the funding that goes into the Carbon Trust, which currently comes from the climate change levy. On that logic, the Conservatives are suggesting moving away from making the polluters pay to putting the burden on the taxpayer. That does not strike me as a good sensible green fiscal tax.

Tim Yeo: I do not know why the Minister is expressing such surprise, because it has always been our position that once emissions trading is fully under way, the principal reason for a climate change levy is removed.

Elliot Morley: The hon. Gentleman is ignoring the fact that the climate change levy is a revenue-neutral tax: it goes back to the sector to improve energy efficiency. It is a green fiscal measure. I support what he said about the scope for extending green fiscal measures, and there is further debate to be had, but such comments are undermined by his point on the climate change levy. It does not make any sense; it is a contradiction.
	Let us take the Conservatives' position on wind power, which is an important renewable. It is a myth that wind power is the Government's only policy. We are spending 50 million on marine energy42 million on tide and wave60 million on biomass, which does not include the reduction in duty, 31 million on photovoltaics, 171 million on offshore windthere is no spending on the development of onshore wind, because that is well establishedand 12.5 million on community and household schemes. So let us not hear the myth that the Government's one approach is through wind power and that we are not supporting other forms of renewable energy.

Alistair Carmichael: Will the Minister give way?

Elliot Morley: I am sorry, but I have only a couple of minutes left.
	The hon. Member for South Suffolk seems to be suggesting that he would give local communities a right of veto over every wind farm development. I make it clear that I am not against planning procedures properly taking into account people's representations, but the proposal would mean no onshore wind development in this country. If there is no onshore wind development, there is not the slightest chance of meeting the renewables targets, because all independent analysts predict that 70 per cent. of renewable energy will come from wind power. That is a resource that we in this country should exploit.
	Although I welcome the consensus shown by this debate and the thoughtful and considered contributions that were made to it, there is a contradiction at the heart of Conservative policy. If the Conservatives oppose renewable energy, abandon targets and give up any pretence of sharing the commitments that we have made to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, they should be honest and admit that they have caved in to industry pressure and given up the green agenda.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House endorses the comments of Sir David King that climate change is the most serious threat facing the planet and congratulates him on his work in this area; welcomes the Prime Minister's commitment to make the tackling of climate change a top priority for the United Kingdom's presidencies of the EU and G8 this year; reiterates the UK commitment to a 60 per cent. reduction in carbon emissions by 2050; strongly welcomes the coming into force of the Kyoto agreement on 16th February and the strong role the European Union has played in achieving this; believes that it is vital that, post-Kyoto, the international community works to reach agreement on the action needed to tackle climate change, which should engage the United States but which should also recognise the importance of the energy choices which face many of the major developing countries; calls on the global community to work with them in addressing those choices; rejects the notion that tackling climate change will of necessity damage the economy and indeed suggests that it is failure to do so that will lead to that result; believes that all parties in this House should by their own actions help convince the public of the need to take environmental matters seriously; and therefore condemns Conservative plans severely to weaken the Environment Agency through the massive and debilitating cuts proposed for the Agency by that party, and its damaging plans to abolish the climate change levy.

Belmarsh Judgment

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I advise the House that when debating the motion hon. Members should take care to avoid referring to individual cases that may be before the courts. The Chair will be particularly attentive in that respect.
	I should also inform the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Mark Oaten: I beg to move,
	That this House calls on the Government to respond to the House of Lords judgment on Belmarsh with a system of dealing with terror suspects which does not require a derogation from European Convention on Human Rights obligations and which enshrines the principle that decisions on restrictions on individual liberties are taken by the courts and not politicians.
	A couple of weeks have passed since the new Home Secretary came to the Chamber and announced his proposals on how to respond to the Law Lords' judgment. There has been a fair amount of media speculation and debate in the press and we Liberal Democrats felt it was important to bring that debate to the Floor of the House. We had the first opportunity to call a proper debate to scrutinise the Government's plans, and we have taken it.

Patrick McLoughlin: When was that principled decision made? Last week, we were told that there would be a debate on crime today.

Mark Oaten: I think that I decided on Thursday morning, when I was struck by the enormous amount of media debate on the subject. I thought that the Chamber was the proper place for that debate, which is why we are discussing the Belmarsh judgment today. I see the Minister nodding.
	This is an early opportunity to explore some of the issues, but first let me make two things crystal clear. First, we welcome the fact that the Home Secretary came to the Floor of the House to announce his proposals. For too long, legal judgments and the rulings of the Law Lords were dismissed or ignored by the previous Home Secretary. At least we now have a Home Secretary who is prepared to engage in debate. We do not agree with the proposals, but we welcome the opportunity to participate in debate and find a sensible solution.
	Secondly, the Liberal Democrats in no way underestimate the seriousness of the threats facing this country. The fact that we differ from the Government on how to tackle those threats does not mean that we do not recognise that the world has changed since 9/11 and that we now face a different problem of international terrorism. It is worth putting on the record our acknowledgement of the fact that we all owe our intelligence services an enormous debt of respect and gratitude for their achievements in the past three or four years. It is nothing short of remarkable we have been able, with the help of their work, to avoid the type of atrocity that we have witnessed in other parts of the world.
	The question before us is one of balance. We all walk a tightrope: on the one hand, we must ensure that we have in place the proper protections in a changed world; on the other, we must protect the very liberties that the terrorists would take away from us. In our judgment, the Government have got that balance wrong in the past three years, and the measures proposed by the new Home Secretary a couple of weeks ago will make the position worse in many ways.
	Let me examine some of the ideas and propose some alternatives in a constructive way, to see whether we can achieve a measure of consensus on the way forward. Before doing so, I wish to make an observation about the level of threat. Although I do not question the general threat facing this country, questions have arisen about the threat posed by the individuals held in Belmarsh. I am mindful of your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, about being careful in our remarks, and as an Opposition Member who does not have access to full information about those individuals, I accept that Ministers might know more than we do, but the release last week of the former detainee known as C raised some concerns.
	I understand that intelligence and information can change. I understand that the Special Immigration Appeals Commission reviewed the case on a couple of occasions. None the less, it seems strange that one day an individual is regarded as being so much of a danger to this country that he can be held without charge, but the next day that individual can be released without any conditions. That seems like an extraordinary shift from black to white.

David Davis: My understanding of that case is that there was not a change in the evidence; there was simply a change in the judgment to the effect that the evidence was not good enough.

Mark Oaten: The shadow Home Secretary makes an interesting point about the transparency in respect of understanding why such decisions are taken. The more we hear about C, however, the more the impact on me and perhaps others is that we want to understand more about the intelligence and the reasons why some other detainees are held. That prompts the question whether some of those individuals are such a danger to society that they should be kept in the way in which they have been kept.

Tim Boswell: Does the hon. Gentleman also agree that under the present arrangements, now overturned by the House of Lords, it would have been open to any of those detainees to go to any country that was prepared to take them? If they were a danger to this country while they were present, would they not equally pose a significant danger not only to this country, but to the wider western world, if they were to find such a country to take them without further detention?

Mark Oaten: The hon. Gentleman makes a very interesting point. Of course, one of the aspects of 9/11 and of terrorism now is that terrorism is global. The ability to operate in different countries means that we cannot simply assume that a threat will change if somebody is removed to a different country.

Tom Harris: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mark Oaten: I want to make bit of progress.
	As for the Government's approach, for the past three years, as we know, detainees have been held without charge. The cases have been under review from the Special Immigration Appeals Commission. As a result of the Government's actions, there has been a need to seek annual review by this House of a derogation from the European convention on human rights. It is fair to say that there were many in the first six months and each year thereafter who were prepared to accept that the Government were dealing with a difficult situation and to give them some leeway, but three years on, that mood has certainly disappeared, and the Liberal Democrats made the judgment last spring that we would vote against that derogation.
	The Newton committee has been extremely critical of what the Government have said. In December 2003, the committee, which comprises some of the most senior Members in all parts of the House, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), who is sitting on the Benches behind me, said:
	We strongly recommend that the powers which allow foreign nationals to be detained potentially indefinitely should be replaced as a matter of urgency.
	Furthermore, some of the individuals who sit on the Special Immigration Appeals Commission resigned. Mr. Macdonald, who represented the interests of five detainees, became an advocate when SIAC was purely an immigration court dealing with cases that involved national security. He described it as becoming an internment court, however, and said:
	I was increasingly uncomfortable at my position in there, and after the government's reaction to the judgment, I decided it was time to go . . . It's something I've been thinking about for some time. The House of Lords' judgment was so very clear about the need to defend the rule of law and I felt that our role is legitimising something I don't think can be legitimised.
	Of course, the Law Lords' ruling was made at the end of last year. They ruled by a majority of eight votes to one that allowing suspects to be held in the way in which they have been held was in breach of their human rights. Lord Nicholls, for example, said that
	indefinite imprisonment without charge or trial is anathema in any country which observes the rules of law.
	Lord Hoffmann said:
	The real threat to the life of the nation comes not from terrorism but from laws such as these.
	The Government have had many warnings, and they have now at last decided to respond. I want to look at their response, but before I get on to the individual measures, I want also to suggest that we should judge those measures on the basis of two overriding principles. From the Liberal Democrat perspective, those principles are as follows. First, we should not have measures that give the Executive alone the power to take these decisions. Secondly, we should not have to seek a derogation or opt-out from our international responsibilities and from conventions. Those two principles should be the benchmark for deciding what Government measures we can support and which ones we will reject.
	Let us look and see how the measures match up against those two criteria. The Government have suggested that house detention be used as part of a control order. We think that that is unacceptable. First, we believe that it would require a further derogation, and the Home Secretary said as much when he came to the House and was questioned by the Opposition parties.
	I do not know whether the Minister can say whether further legal advice has been taken, but the Home Secretary indicated that house detention would probably require a derogation and Liberty and other organisations think that it would fall foul of our international responsibilities.
	The second problem with house detention is that it covers UK nationals, which is totally unacceptable. The third problem with house detention is that it still leaves the power purely with the Home Secretary. If it were to get through the House, the detainees would be likely to challenge it, in which case the Law Lords would probably vote against it three years down the track after various cat and mouse rulings, and the Government would be no better off than they are at the moment.
	Irrespective of those legal concerns and the likelihood that house arrest would be challenged, do we want to live in the kind of society in which the Home Secretary has the power to hold people under house arrest or house detention? Whatever the Government call that policy, that is what it is about. The issue may not involve this Home Secretary, but surely we have a responsibility to legislate for what future Home Secretaries might wish to do. When we legislate in this House, we should legislate not for today, but for what might happen in the future. Giving the Home Secretary the power to hold individuals in that way is totally unacceptable.

Graham Allen: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on how he has conducted the debate, and his party on choosing this important subject for half of its precious Supply day. As well as worrying about how future Home Secretaries might use that power, is it not apposite to consider what recent Home Secretariesfor example, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard)might have done with it? It would be benign in some hands and a frightening prospect in others.

Mark Oaten: Even that former Home Secretary finds the measures unacceptable, which demonstrates how scary they are. The most compelling argument is the list of other countries that use house arrest. Do we really want to be grouped with Burma, Zimbabwe and North Korea? I do not want to be part of the family of countries that have house detention.
	Last Friday, I was shadowed by a newly elected member from the Maldives Parliament, who won his seat despite being held under house detention. He found it remarkable that I was spending part of my Friday dealing with the prospect of having to debate house detention in this country. The Liberal Democrats will certainly not support the Government on house detention.

Vera Baird: I apologise for not being present from the outset, and for being very stuffed up. The comparison with North Korea, Myanmar and Zimbabwe is not correct. Nobody has suggested for one second that the courts would not closely supervise such a power, if it were necessary to take it. There is no reason why a decision by the Home Secretary should not include an automatic and immediate right of appeal, which does not exist in any of the three countries mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.

Mark Oaten: I respect the contribution from the hon. and learned Lady, who makes an awful lot of sense on those issues. However, a full judicial process has not been promised as part of house arrest, and the Home Secretary will make the ultimate decision. What the hon. and learned Lady has described is not a full and proper judicial process.

David Davis: I want to help the hon. Gentleman, albeit that the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) is right about the comparison with North Korea. He has discussed one case in which the evidence probably turned out to be inadequate. If that individual is innocentwe do not knowhe has been in jail for three years with no trial and no rights. Without the latest judgment on that case, he might have been held for much longer. From his point of view, the situation is not much different from that in North Korea.

Mark Oaten: The right hon. Gentleman has made a good point.
	The Government's second suggestion is control orders. I have a little bit more sympathy with the ideas of control orders, when they do not involve house detention. Lower forms of control orders would probably not require a derogationagain, legal advice would be required on that pointso they tick that particular box, although they might give the Executive too much power. That is an important issue, and it may be a way forward, particularly in respect of how we can use tagging, limits on access to communicationsto phones and computersor perhaps even restrictions on access to financial services.
	We would support the measures on control orders if a number of conditions were met. First, they should be issued by judges. Secondly, there should be absolute confirmation that they would not require a derogation. Thirdly, they should be time-limited and renewable with judicial oversight. Fourthly, they should not be used if there is a proper prospect of prosecution taking place. That is a perfectly sensible way forward, through which we could achieve the balance that is being sought between having some control and building in the judicial process. I hope that the Government will consider those suggestions on control orders.
	On whether control orders should be used as an alternative to prosecution, we differ an awful lot from the Government. This is a key issue. As the Newton committee said,
	Terrorists are criminals, and therefore ordinary criminal justice and security provisions should, as far as possible, continue to be the preferred way of countering terrorism.
	We strongly agree. Surely the right way to deal with the situation is to seek prosecutions in the normal way. I note that the Home Secretary said in his statement that that was his preferred starting point.
	It has been possible to achieve that in some cases. In January 2002, two Algerians were charged with membership of al-Qaeda, and although the case was dropped, a year later they were jailed for 11 years. We know that that can be done, so the critical questions are these: why cannot we do that on more occasions, and why is the Home Secretary ruling it out so clearly at this stage? In part, that hinges on concerns about whether one reveals sources, and the protection that one wants to give them. However, I note from the Home Secretary's remarks that he believes that prosecution probably would not be effective in securing a conviction in relation to the existing cases. That may be so, but we should not rule it out on that basis; surely we should also be legislating for future cases, for which we should legislate to allow intercept evidence to be used.
	There must be a way forward to achieve more prosecutions. The Law Commission agrees, as does, interestingly, the new chief of police, Sir Ian Blair. He said:
	I have long been in favour of intercept evidence being used in court. The court can then weigh it up. At the moment nobody can test it.
	There are models throughout Europe; individual countries have found a way to get prosecutions and achieve a proper court process. So what are MI6 and GCHQ telling the Home Secretary that is making him so nervous about allowing that? If there is nervousness about the kind of information that is allowed in court, why are the Government not looking into alternative ways in which we could set up the court process? For example, what about specially trained and security-cleared judges, who could prepare a case that could then be heard by a different judge? What about smaller juries, or special security-cleared juries? OrI do not like this, but if it is a way forward, perhaps we could look into ita jury could hear the evidence, but not have the source material that it has come from. The Government should try to find a way forward on this important principle, so that we can get more prosecutions, as we did in the past.
	I come on to two further issues that concern new offences and relate to ideas that the Government appear to have rejected. The first is the ideaagain, used in several European countriesof making planning for terrorist activity an aggravating factor when sentencing, by allowing courts to pass longer sentences for non-terrorist crimes where there is clear evidence that the offender intended to go on to commit an act of terrorism. In essence, if it can be proved that some terrorism is attached to a criminal activity, a longer sentence can be obtained. Why have the Government rejected that as a model?
	Why have the Government rejected the idea of introducing new offences to deal with loopholes that mean that an individual could be preparing for a terrorist attack that is not covered by legislation elsewhere? We argue that both those proposals should be included in discussions and may be a way forward.
	Let me deal with the Government's final suggestion of deportation. I greatly welcome the Home Secretary's announcement that Ministers have spent some time visiting countries to ascertain whether they can gain agreement on improvements in human rights. All parties welcome that. It should be everyone's long-term objective to try to ensure that individuals are free to go back to countries because their human rights record has improved. However, I would be worried if the Government introduced deportation on the basis of flimsy agreements on a ministerial visit when a memorandum had been signed. That is not good enough and would not persuade us that a robust system was in place to test whether the human rights record had improved sufficiently to allow deportation.
	The Government know that if the system were not sufficiently robust, the detainees could test it in the courts. We make the simple suggestion of legally binding framework agreements with the relevant countries that are pre-tested in the courts to ascertain whether they are robust enough. Until those agreements are in place, no deportation should happen.

John Bercow: The hon. Gentleman is making a good speech and a reasonable suggestion. May I take it from his remarks that he has in mind the prudent notion that, in addition to any framework agreement, there should be an observable record of respect for human rights rather than merely a rhetorical expression of support for them?

Mark Oaten: The hon. Gentleman is right. I do not want a piece of paper but a track record that has been tested, approved and signed by international organisations that we respect for their ability to investigate whether human rights are respected. Only that sort of track record would give me confidence that a deportation could be safe.

David Davis: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his generosity in giving way again. I am straightforwardly seeking information. The French are known to have sent back at least one suspect to Algeria, which is one of our problem countries. Does he know what arrangements they have and whether we can use them?

Mark Oaten: I do not know the arrangements and I would be nervous about assuming that simply because another EU member state had sent an individual back to a country, we could tick the box for this country. I want to ensure that we have gone through the process properly. Other arrangements exist, but I want them to be of such a high standard that this country would be happy to sign them. We cannot assume that it is safe to send individuals back simply because other countries have done that.
	It is difficult to summarise such a complex issue in 20 minutes. We believe that we should seek a cross-party consensus on such matters. The leaders of the two main Opposition parties will see the Prime Minister about the issue and I hope that we can make some progress. However, time is against us. We are required to renew the derogation in March. As things stand, the Liberal Democrats will vote against it. The Government have had threenearly fouryears to resolve those issues and progress has been too slow.
	We want a balance between security and the important principles of justice. I hope that progress can be made, but the Government's proposals so far fail to achieve the balance. In many ways, they make a bad position worse by continuing to undermine the strong principles of justice that have served this country so well for many years.

Hazel Blears: I beg to move, To leave out from House to end and add:
	notes with approval the Government's intention to respond to the House of Lords judgment on Belmarsh by continuing to take all necessary measures to protect the security of the country and its citizens while acting in compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights.
	I thank the Liberal Democrats not only for giving up their Opposition time for an important debate, but for the genuinely open and constructive way in which the arguments have been presented. I am keen to develop as far as possible some cross-party consensus about the serious, difficult and complex issues that face the country. I hope that, through debate, argument, discussion and consideration, we can find our way through some of them. We will not always agree and, as the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) said in his closing remarks, we are discussing the balance between security and liberty. It is a difficult balance to strike and we may strike it in different places, depending on our perspective. However, I hope that we will act in a spirit of seeking the best solution for the future of this country. I take on board the hon. Gentleman's comments that he takes the threat seriously and that he has regard to the challenges that currently face the country.
	The Home Secretary would have been present for the debate, but he is giving evidence to the Select Committee on Home Affairs on the subject of our discussion. Otherwise, he would have been here.

Graham Allen: I thank my hon. Friend for generously giving way so early in her speech. The point that she made about cross-party consensus can also be made about internal consensus within a party, and I think that such consensus can be found. An example would be when the Home Secretary, in his previous job, faced the very difficult issue of student fees. He took a great deal of time to talk to everyone, and used his ministerial team to do so, and a more consensual approach was arrived at, although it remained a difficult issue. Such balances can be struck, both inside and across the parties.

Hazel Blears: My hon. Friend is right. When dealing with difficult issues, dialogue usually helps. Being open to other considerations is also important.
	As the hon. Member for Winchester suggested, we are under certain time constraints, and time is not always on our side. If we are to renew the part 4 powers, we shall have to do so by 13 March, which is why we have had to lay the order in that regard. We hope that our new proposals will mean that that will not be necessary, but we are constrained by the legislative process. We need to get on with this, but the time constraints do not mean that we should not have extensive discussions with people on these issues. I certainly give my commitment to do that.
	I want to set this matter in context by saying a few words about the threat. The hon. Member for Winchester said that he did not doubt that the threat faced by this country was serious, and that it was of a different order since 9/11. That threat comes not only from foreign nationals, among whom it was concentrated immediately after 9/11. As a result of various operations that we have carried out, and because we are now uncovering more about the extent of the threat and know far more about the networks of terrorism, we understand that the threat comes not only from foreign nationals but, increasingly, from British citizens who are involved in this kind of activity. The threat remains serious, and it is the duty of the Home Secretary to protect the security of the nation. At the end of the day, that is probably his most important task, and he clearly takes it extremely seriously.

Alan Beith: It is perhaps worth making the point that 9/11 did not demonstrate a threat that had not existed previously. The threat had indeed existed. The events of 9/11 told the people of the United States of America that it was a very real threat against thema fact that they had not appreciatedand demonstrated the extent to which the sources of the threat could be hidden in the country that was being threatened, as they were in the United States.

Hazel Blears: The right hon. Gentleman is correct. Clearly, that threat was real and serious before 9/11. Incidents had taken place that revealed that. I am seeking to show that that threat is developing as we learn more about the activities that go on. The threat remains serious, but it is also becoming more complex and more textured as we learn more about the different individuals involved and approach the issue from different angles. The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, however. The threat was clearly there before 9/11.
	The Home Secretary has regular, frequent discussions with the director general of the Security Service and the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police. He also receives regular updates on the level of the threat from the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre. He is in no doubtand neither am Ithat the threat remains, and that nothing has happened to diminish it or to call into question the Government's assessment that a public emergency is threatening the life of the nation. The judgment in the House of Lords found by a majority of eight to one that that was the case. They certainly came to different conclusions on proportionality and discrimination, but they confirmed that a public emergency was threatening the life of the nation.
	That is my starting point for this debate, because it sets out the context of the threat. That necessarily shapes the action that we need to take to meet the threat and to protect the security of this country and its people. We need to strike the right balance between security and liberty, but my personal starting point is that terrorism poses a real and serious threat to the structures and people of this country. We have to put in place a framework that addresses that threat as proportionately as we can, and without discriminating, if we are to meet the terms of the Law Lords' judgment. We are currently engaged in a process to try to find our way through this legal systemwith regard not only to our own legal system but to the interaction with the European convention on human rightsto find the way forward.
	The hon. Member for Winchester said that we had taken an awfully long time to come forward with our proposals, but I take issue with him on that point. The Law Lords' judgment was made on 16 December, and the Home Secretary made his statement in this House on 26 January. That was not a huge amount of time in which to deal with complex issues such as these. I entirely take the point that there were recommendations from the Newton committee, which sparked off the publication of our consultation paper and the wide-ranging debate about the balance between security and liberty. However, the Law Lords made their decision only in December, and the Home Secretary made his statement as soon as he could, on 26 January, to give some flavour to the proposals that we want to introduce.
	The hon. Gentleman also said that he could not possibly support the proposals made by the Home Secretary. That is a little premature. We have had the ministerial statement, but we have not seen the legislation and he has not seen the detail. I appreciate his support for some ideas around control orders, but I ask him to hang fire on judging entirely the proposals that we hope to make in the next few weeks rather than months.
	The 26 January statement set out our decision to respond to the Law Lords' ruling by including these proposals for control orders. The part 4 powers were designed to protect us against the particular threat identified from foreign nationals whom we could not deport because we were worried about the infringement of their rights under the European conventionthe likelihood that they could be subject to torture and ill treatment should they be deported.
	We tried at that time to get a tight-focused response to the threat that was there. We used the Special Immigration Appeals Commission, because it was already in existence and it provided a way to take closed evidence, as well as open. It was chaired by a High Court judge and it had a structure to enable us to deal with the problem. Although the part 4 powers have since been traduced and parodied in some quarters as the Home Secretary's huge, broad-brush attempt to lock people up and throw away the key, nothing could be further from the truth.
	We really tried to target the threat, which was mainly from foreign nationals. We could not deport them, so we used some immigration powers that were already on the statute book. That is why we went for that model. Clearly, the House of Lords has decided that that is incompatible with the European convention on human rights, although it has not decided that it is unlawful. Therefore, it is a matter for Parliament to decide how we respond to that.
	There were two main complaints: the House of Lords did not feel that the detention powers were proportionate to the public emergency that we face and thought them discriminatory as they applied only to foreign nationals, rather than to British citizens as well. In a way, part of that argument is circular, because the Law Lords also expressed the view that, if the proposals applied only to foreign nationals and there was a threat from British citizens, was it not the case that they were disproportionate if we were not applying them across the board? Although they had concerns on those two separate limbs, there was also a connection between whether the powers were discriminatory and whether there was a similar threat from British citizenswere they therefore disproportionate because we had not exercised them against British citizens in such a way?

Tim Boswell: Is not this the dilemma that the Minister faces? If the detention orders apply to only a handful of foreign nationals, for the reasons she has given, and if the terrorism threat to this country is much more extensivefor the purposes of the debate, we must accept that it isit seems almost paradoxical to say that the existence of those powers, confined to foreign nationals, is in any way sufficient or appropriate to meet the threat that the country faces. It seems to be partial because it is discriminatory. If she argues that only a few people are involved, that in a way weakens the case that she has to make. I expose that as a dilemma, without necessarily resolving it.

Hazel Blears: This whole area is full of dilemmas for us to try to resolve. They are not easy issues. We have said that the part 4 powers were exercised very sparingly indeed; we only ever certified 17 people. Equally, when we introduce control orders, we do not want to use this as a broad-brush measure. We want to target it on the threat. At the moment, all we have are powers of detention or no powers at all. That makes a good case for control orders, because we could have a spectrum of powers tailored individually to the threat that we face, which I hope will help us to meet the claim made by the House of Lords on proportionthis was a matter of all or nothing. The House of Lords did not feel that detention was proportionate in those terms.
	Clearly, the case for control orders should be more reassuring to the country, as we shall be able to tailor the web of restrictions to meet the threat that we face, which inevitably will arise at different levels. As a general matter, as the Home Secretary said in his statement, we want control orders to be very tightly focused. We do not envisage using them in such a broad-brush way.

Simon Hughes: I accept what the Minister says, and the House of Lords judgment was clear, but what we have at the moment is what this Government have given us. She was not a Home Office Minister at the time, but the law that we have was introduced by a Labour Government and passed by Parliament. Some of us opposed it, saying that there were other measuresnot all-or-nothing measures. That has always been an agenda option, but the Government decided not to choose it when it was available the first time round.

Hazel Blears: The existing powers have been subject to appeal. The Court of Appeal supported them unanimously; the House of Lords took a different view. Clearly, therefore, these are controversial matters, in both legal and political terms. The hon. Gentleman decided at the time not to support that way forward, but that way was taken and was supported by the Court of Appeal. We now have the Law Lords' judgment, and we are responding to that.

Jeremy Corbyn: I was one of those who did not support the legislation when it was first proposed, not because I want there to be any terrorist outragesquite the oppositebut because I want a process of law, not of Executive detention. The Minister must address whether it is right, in a democracy, for a Government to take on themselves powers to detain people without charge, and without knowledge of the evidence against themindefinitely, in the case of foreign nationals. The response to the Law Lords' judgment must be that we accept the point of an independent judicial systemindependent of the political process.

Hazel Blears: Yes, I shall come to those points. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) pointed out in her intervention, we want rigorous independent judicial scrutiny of the proposed powers, but I shall come to those.
	The proposals for control orders therefore address the issues highlighted by the House of Lords head-on: in relation to proportionality, as we will have a tailored suite of measures; and in relation to discrimination, as they will apply to British citizens as well as foreign nationals. They will apply regardless of the type of terrorism in which people are involved. The proposed restrictions will range from not associating with certain people to not having access to the internet or mobile phones, notification as to an individual's whereabouts and not visiting particular premises or areas. The Home Secretary has made it clear that the decision to make a control order would not be taken lightly and, rightly, would not be unfettered. Safeguards are important, and will include independent judicial oversight of the Home Secretary's decision to make or vary a control order. In addition to the right of appeal immediately against the order, there will be regular independent reviews, not just of the fact that the order has been made but of any conditions attached. Circumstances might change, so different conditions might be appropriate at different times.
	The hon. Member for Winchester referred to the revocation of the certificate in relation to C, asking whether one day this person was a huge threat to the security of the nation, and the next day he was not. I shall not comment on his individual case, but circumstances might well change and people's networks of contacts might get degraded through disruption by police operations, so there might no longer be a need for the most rigorous conditions in a control order. It is right that one should be allowed to apply to vary and change the conditions envisaged in the control order at that time.

Lembit �pik: rose

Hazel Blears: I shall make one further point, as it may help hon. Members. I am conscious of the time.
	It is important to take the issue of who makes the orders head-on, as that is a difference between us at the moment. The Home Secretary said in his statement that
	to surrender the responsibility of the Executive to the courts to take decisions on these matters, it would in the most real sense be a betrayal of the responsibility that I as Home Secretary and any future holder of this office bear for the security of the state. That responsibility must lie, and in my opinion rightly, with the Executive and in this case with the Home Secretary.[Official Report, 26 January 2005; Vol. 430, c. 318.]
	The role of the courts is properly to reach a view on the decisions of the Executive in accordance with the law. That is the position that we take in relation to that. Clearly, we shall continue to discuss and debate this matter. As the Home Secretary is responsible for the country's national security, he feels that abrogating those decisions to the judiciary is not the appropriate way to proceed. That does not mean that rigorous, independent judicial oversight cannot be done to make sure that any decisions taken are in accordance with the law. Our motion makes it clear that we want a system that is in compliance with the European convention on human rights. It was this Government who passed the Human Rights Act 1998, and we take our responsibilities incredibly seriously in that regard. We want to make sure that we are in compliance.

Lembit �pik: As I listen to the Minister, I find her comments increasingly reminiscent of the similar arguments that were used to defend detention without trial in Northern Ireland. Leaving aside the political and legal questions, does she accept that plenty of evidence from Northern Ireland suggests that even control orders have the adverse effect of turning such individuals into martyrs in the eyes of the very people whom she is trying to deter from terrorist activity? May I suggest that many of the proposals, especially on detention, could end up becoming a recruiting sergeant for the terrorists?

Hazel Blears: We are conscious of those arguments, and we have learned from the experience of trying to deal with terrorism over many years. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would accept, however, that some individuals are committed to taking action that would strike at the very heart and fabric of the values that we hold dear in our democracy. They are out there. How do we strike a balance and operate a system that enables us to contain the threat against this country and, at the same time, maximise the rule of law?
	We must try to ensure that we comply as much as we can but, at the same, we recognise that there are circumstances in which there is not sufficient admissible evidence. If evidence were used, it could reveal the techniques and capabilities of the Security Service, to the detriment of our ability to thwart and disrupt terrorists of that nature. That is an extremely difficult balance to strike. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is in danger of painting a black-and-white picture: either we let everyone out or we lock everyone up; either we comply with the rule of law or we completely abrogate it. There is a shade and a spectrumwe can seek to maximise our compliance with the rule of law while at the same time providing a rigorous framework that protects this country.

Lembit �pik: I do not intend to embark on a dialogue with the Minister, but I would point out that everyone agrees that detention without trial in Northern Ireland was ultimately counter-productive. I am merely suggesting that much of the language and the justification that she is using for Government policy sounds exactly like the justification used before detention without trial was repealed.

Hazel Blears: The hon. Gentleman repeats his remarks, but I do not think that it would be useful for me to repeat mine.
	When the Home Secretary makes the orders he is not passing a sentence on someone; he is taking action to prevent them from threatening the security of this country. The decisions that he makes under part 4 of the present legislation have been subject to review by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission, which is a court chaired by a High Court judge who has seen the evidence, both open and closed. We therefore have a system of good, rigorous, independent judicial oversight, and we would certainly want to have at least as robust a system for the control orders, and to make sure that judges are involved in scrutinising the Home Secretary's decisions.

Alan Beith: Surely the Minister appreciates that there is a difference between oversight and judicial decision making. There would be no abrogating of the Home Secretary's responsibility for security if he initiated a process in which the decision was made judicially and not as part of a lengthy subsequent review. There is surely room for the Government to move and recognise that most of the public would be much happier if the decision were in the hands of the judiciary and the Home Secretary merely initiated the process.

Hazel Blears: I accept the right hon. Gentleman's point, and I am trying to be as honest and straightforward as I can. The Home Secretary makes the decision because it is right, given his personal responsibilities for the security of the nation, for him to do so, rather than give that decision and responsibility to someone else. He accepts that it is right to have good judicial oversight, but he does not think that those decisions should be made by the courts. He thinks that initially they should be made by him in exercising his responsibility on behalf the Executive. I am sure that we will continue to have this debate, but it is right to be open about the matter.

Robert Marshall-Andrews: Will the Minister address two related questions? First, will the judicial oversight or review to which she referred be based on matters of fact as well as law? Secondly, is it proposed that judicial review by the High Court be excluded, as it has been in the past?

Hazel Blears: I am sorry to disappoint my hon. and learned Friend, but I am not in a position to make proposals on those matters of detail, which need to be finalised. What is the standard of proof required? What is the extent of judicial oversight? Should there be a judicial review or an appeal? Is the process based on fact and law? Those are all perfectly legitimate questions, but I am not in a position today to give the House the information requested by my hon. and learned Friend. Those matters, including whether judicial oversight will be as robust as we want it, will be properly and fully explored.

Simon Hughes: The Minister has admitted that this is a really important matter. Would it not be far more acceptable, and better meet the Home Secretary's objectives, if the police were able to arrest someone if they believed that they were conspiring to commit an offence related to terrorism? That is what happens now, and as long as the police officer has a reasonable suspicion, it is not necessary to go to the courts every time the police want to arrest someone. Why cannot we have the same process, which would be open to judicial oversight if the police overstepped the mark?

Hazel Blears: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but I have already said that I am not in a position to provide a final view on the matter. The debate about the right process will continue. My main point is about who initiates and who makes the orders, and we seem to take different views on that. We are happy to discuss these matters as the debate develops on how the process should work.
	I want to explain our approach more fully. It has been said several times that the most appropriate way to proceed is to prosecute. I want to put on record the fact that we absolutely share that view. Whenever we can, we want to prosecute, bring people to trial, adduce the evidence and let the court decide. It is only when we cannot prosecute because parts of the evidence are inadmissible or would reveal the capabilities of the Security Service that we find ourselves in the position of requiring some mechanism and machinery to enable us to protect the people of this country through a series of orders, while at the same time ensuring that we comply with the rule of law as much as possible. We always prefer to prosecute when we can. A number of prosecutions have already been launched and hon. Members may be aware of the comments of the new Metropolitan Police Commissioner, who expressed his frustration at how little detail we have been able to provide because these matters are sub judice. The public do not know the extent of the arrests, operations and work that have been carried out in order to bring people to trial. Prosecuting is, as I said, always our preferred option.
	Some people are highly exercised about why we decided not to allow intercept to be used as evidence. It is right for me to provide hon. Members with some of our detailed thoughts on that matter. First, it is not a magic bullet. We have said time and again that the review examined whether we would be able to bring more serious criminals and terrorists to trial if we used intercept as evidence. The review found that that would not be the case and it examined the cases of individual detainees. As I understand it, it would not have been possible to bring any of those cases to a formal trial by using intercept evidence.
	This country has a unique system of co-operation between our intelligence agencies and the police. It does not exist in many other countries. The sharing of intelligence product with our law enforcement agencies is second to none and there is a genuine worry that if we were to allow intercept to be used as evidence, that unique and close working relationship could be jeopardised. Some of the intelligence product might not be able to be shared with law enforcement in any case. I would be seriously concerned if the excellent disruptive work that currently takes place were to be put at risk because intelligence agencies felt it impossible to share their intelligence product with the police service. Indeed, if we allowed that to happen, as some have proposed, we would be taking a retrograde step. Once again, these are matters of fine balance and our decision is that, on balance, the benefits do not outweigh the costs at this time.

David Davis: I want to question the Minister on the sensitivity of our allies in the war against terror. Most of them allow intercept evidence, so it seems strange that those who use it themselves should object to our using it. I have always found the argument unpersuasive since the time when I worked in the Foreign Office.

Hazel Blears: The right hon. Gentleman may find the arguments unpersuasive, but I find them quite persuasive as they are put to me at the moment. Clearly, we all have to make our own judgment about where the balance is drawn. We have a unique system of very close co-operation, and I am worried that we would jeopardise it if we used intercept as evidence. Secondly, we have an adversarial legal system, in which the defence has the right of full disclosure. If the security services were to use those parts of intercept that supported their case, they could be accused of cherry-picking the evidence. Quite rightly, the defence would seek to follow the whole chain of events in respect of the intercept that had been obtained.
	Our adversarial system complies with the European convention on human rights and contains a number of hurdles that make it very difficult to use intercept as evidence. Moreover, technology is changing very fast indeed. We have been working to develop a legal model containing a system of checks and balances that would enable us to use intercept as both intelligence and evidence. However, the speed of technological change means that any model that we might develop would not be robust enough to interact with our legal system.
	Other hon. Members have asked whether public interest immunity certificates would suffice to enable us to keep sensitive information about the security services' capabilities outwith disclosure. Again, the risk is that the courts would not support the PII certificate. If that happens, a capability that is disclosed is disclosed for all time. That is a major difficulty with using intercepted evidence.
	I am not saying that the Government will not keep under review a matter that has been reviewed five times in the past 10 years. On each occasion, it was decided that intercepted evidence should not be used. I appreciate that people argue the other side of the case firmly, but the Government are not convinced that intercepted evidence could be used to fight terrorism more effectively than is the case at present.

David Davis: I thank the Minister for giving way yet again; she has been very generous. I want to ask a question about the use of PII. Other nations, particularly America, have very formal structures to arbitrate between the interests of the state and of the defendant, and they work well. If the Minister is so doubtful about using PII certificates, why can this country not adopt such a structure?

Hazel Blears: All these matters have been examined. We have looked at other legal systems and protection mechanisms, as we are keen to find a way forward. However, we cannot simply transplant other systems into our law, as it operates in a different way. We are not convinced that we could achieve a system that was robust enough to protect the security services and at the same time allow us to use useful product.
	In some countries that use intercept as evidence, the product is fairly minimal. Because it is used as evidence, other people are unwilling to share their product. That is a real concern for the Government. At the moment, we get excellent product because we are able to use it in surveillance and other activities that enable us to disrupt much of what might otherwise happen. The whole House will agree that the record of our intelligence agencies and police force in disrupting some of what might have happened in this country is second to none.
	I apologise to the House for dealing with intercept at length, but the matter has been raised in a number of debates recently, and it was important to go through the issues associated with it.
	The hon. Member for Winchester asked whether we would consider the Newton committee's recommendations in respect of looking at other offences committed preparatory to the commission of terrorism. We are actively looking at those recommendations. Control orders are our priority at the moment, as we want to have something in place before the part 4 powers expire. However, if there are other steps that we can take to make our judicial system more effective in fighting the threat of terrorism, we will of course look at all of them.
	Mr. Deputy Speaker, I think that I have dealt with most of the issues raised by the hon. Member for Winchester. With your leave, I shall try at the end of the debate to cover any other matters that come up. I am pleased by the tone of the debate so far, and I am sure that all hon. Members will continue to co-operate in the search for solutions to the very difficult problems with which we are faced.

David Davis: I begin by commending the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) on the tone that he set for the debate. This is one of those debates in which hon. Members will not engage in political combat so much as seek to persuade each other. The opposing principles involvedthe preservation of life, or the preservation of our way of lifeare fundamental, and that is something that we should not underestimate.
	I also want to commend the Home Secretary on the long overdue action that he has taken to make deportation possible. As I said to the hon. Member for Winchester, the French seem to be able to deport people to Algeria, which is one of our problem countries. Why can we not do so, not necessarily using the same mechanism, but using our mechanisms? As a former Foreign Office Minister, I recognise that this is a difficult but nevertheless creditable process.

Jeremy Corbyn: As a former Minister, the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the Foreign Office monitors human rights issues in all countries and that the Home Office has its own internal system, although I believe that it is slightly different. Is he satisfied that if someone is deported to Algeriathere are plenty of other examplesthey will not be subject to abuse or Executive detention, not necessarily on arrival, but later, which may be why they left that country in the first place?

David Davis: The hon. Gentleman has raised a good point, and it is the sort of matter that the Minister would have to address in the memorandum of understanding. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Winchester that there has to be a legal framework, because a memorandum of understanding can be binding between countries. It should address torture and execution, which are the two primary issues, but also Executive detention. A judgment must be made, and it will be a better judgment than the one we have had so far.
	I want to read some extracts from the minority opinion of Lord Hoffmann, who made some pertinent points that go to the core of the issue. He said:
	This is one of the most important cases which the House has had to decide in recent years. It calls into question the very existence of an ancient liberty of which this country has until now been very proud: freedom from arbitrary arrest and detention. The power which the Home Secretary seeks to uphold is a power to detain people indefinitely without charge or trial. Nothing could be more antithetical to the instincts and traditions of the people of the United Kingdom.
	As I develop my argument, I shall explain how the Government's proposal still falls within the description of the old system.
	What Lord Hoffmann went on to say is important in the context of the Minister's reasonable comments about a state of emergency. He said:
	This is a nation which has been tested in adversity, which has survived physical destruction and catastrophic loss of life. I do not underestimate the ability of fanatical groups of terrorists to kill and destroy, but they do not threaten the life of the nation. Whether we would survive Hitler hung in the balance, but there is no doubt that we shall survive Al-Qaeda. The Spanish people have not said that what happened in Madrid, hideous crime as it was, threatened the life of their nation. Their legendary pride would not allow it. Terrorist violence, serious as it is, does not threaten our institutions of government or our existence as a civil community.
	In conclusion, he said:
	The real threat to the life of the nation, in the sense of a people living in accordance with its traditional laws and political values, comes not from terrorism but from laws such as these. That is the true measure of what terrorism may achieve. It is for Parliament to decide whether to give the terrorists such a victory.
	I would not have chosen that phrasing, but Lord Hoffmann is saying that terrorists may destroy our buildings and our lives, but without our help they cannot destroy our way of life. That is what this debate is about today.

Simon Hughes: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the implication of that very good summary of the position is that there was not and still is not a case for derogating from our obligations under the European convention on human rights, because it allows flexibility in certain cases? That means that his party, like ours, will hold to the view that we must stay within the European convention and not seek to derogate again, which would be a different position from that taken by his party during the last Parliament.

David Davis: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. I support the thrust of the argument urged by his party today. He will not be surprised to hear that I would have phrased it in terms not of the ECHR but of our fundamental rights, which are of longer standing. Let us consider how the Government can deal with the matter in a way that meets the fundamental rights about which I am concerned and the concerns that he is expressing.
	Although I realise that there is a good reason why the Home Secretary cannot be in the Chamber today, I am sorry that he is not here, as I was going to tease him slightly. When he and I first knew each other more than 30 years ago in the 1960s the most fashionable writers were revolutionary left-wing writers, such as Guevara and Frantz Fanon. Some of the writers that the Home Secretary would have read made it clear that one of the main aims of revolutionary terrorist acts is to provoke a reactionary response from the state, to recruit new people to their cause. We must bear that in mind when addressing these issues so that we do not inadvertently do what the terrorists want us to doin effect, that is what Lord Hoffmann was talking about.
	The Home Secretary's proposed actions may not only be in breach of hundreds of years of our ancient British liberties, they may also be counter-productive. I do not normally quote Frenchmen, but in the words of Talleyrand this is, in terms of the war against terror,
	worse than a crime, it is a mistake.
	That is the risk we face. As I said about house arrest when the Home Secretary made his statement to the House on the matter, he may lock up one known terrorist but he will create 10 unknown terrorists. Although house arrest is marginally less draconian than being in prison, the irony is that it may act as a stronger recruiting agent because it is in the middle of the community from which the person comes.
	I am not the only person who takes that viewthe most eminent ally I have found over the past few days is the chairman of the Bar Council, who said:
	Disproportionate measures risk radicalising the community from which a detainee comes. That may make this country less rather than more safe.
	It is important that we keep that in mind.

Tom Harris: I assume that the right hon. Gentleman is talking about the current situation in Belmarsh rather than the Home Secretary's new proposals. Can he put that scepticism in the context of his support for the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001? In December, he told Morgan and Platell that he could not remember whether he supported the Act. Is his memory any better now? Can he tell us whether his new position is a U-turn or what he always believed?

David Davis: If the hon. Gentleman wants us to return to political combat I am happy to do so, but I am not talking about the old system, I am talking about what is now being proposed. The Minister could not elaborate in detail on that set of proposals, but we shall no doubt hear more over the next few weeks. We shall have to assess the proposals in terms both of the fundamental human rights in which I believe, even if the hon. Gentleman does not, and of the safety of our country. I happen to believe that the proper action will maximise both and will not act as a compromise between them, as I shall explain.
	We should address the principles of justice that are being jeopardised by the Government's proposals. The first is the presumption of innocence. Then there is the person's right to know the charge against them, the right to know and challenge the evidence against them and the right for the case against them to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. It was failure on all those counts that led Ian Macdonald to resign from his position as a lawyer serving the Special Immigration Appeals Commission. He talked about the new proposals as follows:
	They are really using detention rules which have been declared unlawful. At the end of the day if you're going to keep people in some sort of house arrest or in prison, you really have to take account of what I think is a fundamental principle, that people are presumed innocent. If they're really dangerous they should be charged under criminal law.
	That is the key point before us today.
	Objections to the SIAC procedures apply equally to the new proposals.

Vera Baird: Although Ian Macdonald resigned, that was surely triggered by the House of Lords judgment. I have known him for many years, and he is a man of the highest calibre. He served in his role for more than two years, feeling, as he made clear, that he had been doing something helpful and that he had been able to assist the defendants, which shows that SIAC is not a hopeless and futile pursuit but that it can in fact play an important role. That is not something that should be diminished.

David Davis: The hon. and learned Lady makes an important point. I think that I am right in saying that Ian Macdonald said when he resigned that he had joined up because he thought he could help by doing a good job. The circumstances that he describes sound like a slow process of becoming more and more disaffected with the operation of the procedures, which, as she suggests, precipitated his resignation after the House of Lords decision. In fact, he was not the only one who felt that way: at least one other resigned and a number of others considered resigning, and for good reason.

Douglas Hogg: My right hon. Friend knows that I am against the Government's proposals in principle. Will he also address the Minister's statement to the effect that there will be rigorous legal supervision of the control order process? He will bear in mind the fact that she was unable to answer the question that the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) asked about whether the judicial review would extend to facts or only to law. She said that she had not made up her mind. Until we know what her mind is on that matter, she is in no position to say that the judicial supervision will be rigorous.

David Davis: I start further back than my right hon. and learned Friend. First, I do not like the idea of the Executive taking such decisions. Even under the current procedure, people have been in prison for three years, and perhaps longer in one casewe do not knowso I do not like it from that point of view. I do not like the state taking those decisions into its own hands. As I am about to explain, I also think that the standards applied on questions not only of law but of fact are very important. That is where the primary criticism of SIAC lies, in my judgment.
	After all, the purpose of the Newton committee, which was set up at the beginning of the process when the 2001 Act first came into effect, was to assess how the legislation was working and to ensure that the House received a report on its operation. At the beginning, as the hon. and learned Lady made clear in her intervention, many people did not quite know how the system would work, but they wanted to try to make it work. They were very good, high-quality people, but they have reached the conclusion, as Newton did, that the system is not working well.
	Let us bear in mind the fact that the Newton committee included several ex-Cabinet Ministers and ex-Ministers who had responsibility for security in Northern Irelandnot people who would normally be viewed as a pushover for the civil liberties lobby. They reached a series of conclusions and a number of principled objections to the operation of detention established by the 2001 Act. Essentially, the committee noted that the suspects faced no specific charge and were not presented with, and given the opportunity to refute, all the evidence against them. It reached the judgment that that increases the risk of a miscarriage of justicethe point that came up in the Liberal spokesman's comments.
	The report also suggested that that risk is compounded by certain features of the certification and adjudication process. For examplein my view, this is almost the most important thing at the centre of the issuethe standard of proof involved in the SIAC procedure is reasonable belief and suspicion. That is an incredibly low standard of proof on which to undertake the incarceration, certainly of a citizen of this country, but frankly, of anyone. Let us understand that point. We talk about the terrorist destroying lives, but incarceration is a way of destroying a life, too. Such people cannot work or do anything. Even if people are incarcerated in their own homes, it still involves the destruction of the life that they have a right to expect if they are innocent.
	In addition, the current SIAC rules do not oblige the Home Secretary to reveal all the material that could help the suspect, even in summary form. Sometimes, the vast majority of the details of a case are closed, so the open case might be an unreliable indication of the basis of the closed case. The report also noted that detention under part 4 can be for an indefinite periodone of the more Kafkaesque aspects of the current system.
	The problem with the Minister's inability to reply to the hon. and learned Member for Medway is that, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) points out, we must assume for the moment at least that the same approaches, criticisms and concerns will apply to the review process that will follow on from Executive detention or control orders in the looser sense. In my view, that is, frankly, unacceptable. It is not consistent with the long-term liberties of British subjects, and as I have said already, it may be counter-productive.

Vera Baird: I have heard all the right hon. Gentleman's reservations about SIAC, but if the same system carries on, surely the answer to the question asked by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway is yes, because the new court to replace SIAC will, as SIAC does, review the facts as well as the law.

David Davis: The hon. and learned Lady is right, but part of the problem is that the facts will be reviewed using a lower standard of proof. Additionally, in some instances, much of the case might be the secret case rather than the public case. The procedure is poor.

Graham Allen: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

David Davis: In a moment, because the hon. and learned Lady raised a serious and important question. The procedure is poor for a country that has long stood by the presumption of innocence, the right of people to know the charge and evidence against them, and to be able to refute it beyond reasonable doubt.

Graham Allen: People of good will on both sides of the House are trying to help the Government to reconcile the awful dilemma between terrorist threats and attacks on civil liberties. Is not one way forward the fact that few cases have resulted in people being incarcerated in Belmarsh? There have not been several hundred cases, but instead only a relatively small number, so surely that gives us more leeway to use procedural sophistication to try to overcome the dilemma.

David Davis: I do not think that it does. Obviously it is better to have few cases rather than many, but even one case of injustice is sufficient to warrant the serious attention of the House. It takes only one case of injustice to act as a recruiting sergeant, as I said earlier. That is why I am worried and why I want to outline what I believe is the right procedure for the Government to pursue, which I hope will meet the requirements for both national security and our liberties.

Mark Oaten: Is not the other problem with the point made by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) that although the Home Secretary initially said that he thought that control orders would rarely be handed out, he gave media interviews in which he said that they might have to be handed out to relatives, friends and associates? We might be dealing not with a limited number of control orders, but with a large number.

David Davis: That is true. The simple fact of the matter is that the House could not pass a law on the presumption that it would apply to only one or two people. It must use the presumption that a law will be used to its maximum. If we look back at the case that the hon. Gentleman raised, I recall that the evidence had not changed but was found to be too weak to sustain the case against the individual. It is implicit in that that a person was locked up wrongly for three years. If only one person is locked up wrongly, let alone hundreds, it is too many.
	The Newton committee made several proposals, two of which stand out in the context of today's debate as offering the Government a way forward. It recommends developing a body of counter-terrorist law that is specific to the problem that we face, but capable of being enforced without compromising our criminal justice system. I agree with that, and the Liberal Democrats' proposal was in part a development of it. However, I got the impression that the structure could be wider than that, and if we hear from the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), a member of the Newton committee, he might clarify that point. I thought that the committee had in mind a complete body of law applying to terrorist offences that would be part of the criminal law, but separate from it. For example, when the American authorities had trouble securing effective prosecutions against gangsterism and racketeering in north America, they introduced the RICORacketeer Influenced and Corrupt OrganisationsAct. Perhaps such an approach should be considered for terrorist offences.
	The most important suggestion made by the Newton committee was the proposal to render terrorist suspects capable of being brought to trial under the normal British system of justice. It suggested that intercept evidence should be allowed in court, and proposed I thought that this was the most important aspectthat an investigating judge who was different from the trial judge should sift the sensitive evidence.
	The presumption so far seems to have been that such evidence would be only intercept evidence, but the proposal was for assessing and checking sensitive evidenceintercept and all other intelligence-based evidencebefore presenting it to the court in a way that protected the intelligence source, human or technical, and at the same time protected the rights of the defendant.
	The Minister spoke about public interest immunity certificates. I am not a fan of them. When I have been asked to sign a certificate, I have refused because I have taken the view that they were being used to avoid embarrassment for the Department concerned rather than to pursue justice. Given the Minister's concern about PII certificates and the right of a judge to overrule them, that is the area where the Government's focus should be sharpest, because it is where we have the greatest opportunity for advancing the case for the possibility of prosecuting terrorists while at the same time protecting our services.
	I talked privately to the Home Secretary about the matter and, as far as I can without giving away any confidences, I will replicate that conversation. The Home Secretary said, as the Minister has said, that it may not even be primarily intercept evidence that is involved in tracking down suspected terrorists and determining who they are. Let me put the most difficult case and see how we can pursue it under the Newton rules. Let us assume that the data are not intercept data but from an informer whose life might be at risk in a terrorist organisation and who is so nervous that he will not even meet the investigating judge to be interviewed. What will happen to that person if they are not put under house arrest?
	The first thing that we must understand is that if the person concerned is a threat to the state and to our citizens, they will be under the most intensive surveillancewhat the agencies delicately call technical attack: bugging, video surveillance, human surveillance, intercepts of mobile, landline and satellite telephones, and of e-mails and bank accounts, and the tracking of vehicles. There is a vast range of facilities available to the security services.
	If at the end of that process there is no evidence, we are talking about locking somebody up as a result of an uncorroborated comment from an informer who might be an enemy, might be in political opposition to the person, might have been bribed or might merely hate the person. Either one can develop the evidence and determine that the person is a terrorist or one cannot. Given the intensive nature of the surveillance that will be ranged against somebody who is a serious threat to the state, it is untenable that a case could not be built even if the original data that allowed the individual to be targeted were not used.

Simon Hughes: The countries on mainland Europe that use such a system do so because they have an inquisitorial tradition, where it is acceptable to have an examination by somebody competent to filter out the evidence that can go to stage two. Such a change might require us to alter our mindset and do some jobs not adversarially but by an inquisition. I and my colleagues are up for that, because it preserves a proper legal process and ensures that sources are protected where necessary.

David Davis: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. He probably understands how big a jump it is for me to go to a continental inquisitorial system from the normal adversarial systems that I prefer. The simple fact is that the judge, who will presumably be a specialist in the area, would be duty-bound by the requirement not only to protect absolutely the lives and technical sources of the security services, but to ensure that the defence is not prejudiced in the evidence presented to the court in summary or in total. That seems to me to be a perfectly acceptable system. It will be of a higher quality, and in the long run more effective than our present system, and it will be entirely defensible to the communities that might otherwise be radicalised by inappropriate measures.

Tim Boswell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in the scenario he paints involving the single informer who might have a prejudicial interest in the person in question, it would be unacceptable, under the system that the Government propose, for Ministers to conclude that that person was a threat if that was the sheer weight of the evidence available to them? Unless there is some way to test the accusation and to do so objectively, it is not acceptable to put people in prison or to some other inconvenience simply by administrative fiat.

David Davis: My hon. Friend puts the argument better than I could. We are, in effect, discussing sending someone down on the uncorroborated say-so of a single informant. I defer to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, but I spent about nine of 13 years dealing with the agencies involved in this issue, and they were very clear that the people they dealt with did not always demonstrate the most saintly calibre in providing information. The agencies had to corroborate the information that they gavea matter with which the House has become all too familiar in the past year.

Ian Lucas: The right hon. Gentleman correctly identifies one of the great difficulties: the inability to establish what information can be released to the defence so that the accused is aware of the allegations being made against him. What is not clear to me is how the process that he describes would enable more information to be released to the defence than would be possible under the Government's proposed system.

David Davis: The process would allow more information to be released to the courtnot to the defencebecause, to be frank, it would not allow a fishing expedition to be conducted into the totality of the intelligence agencies' data. As things stand, a defence lawyer would be able to say, reasonably, We have been given only half the evidence. Now, I need to see the other half. Our aim is to ensure that the balance is maintained.
	The second difficult case that I wish to put relates to the Liberal Democrats' proposals for milder methodsusing tagging and other sorts of control order. I gave the matter extensive thought in the weekend following the Home Secretary's statement. I started from the presumption that whichever standard of proof was applied to the Government's proposal of house arrest would be applied to control ordersin effect, suspicion. That is a concession in terms of our law and our fundamental liberties.
	I then thought what advantage would arise from the Liberal Democrats' proposed method. Tagging is clearly a valuable technique in dealing with criminals. I suspect that the Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety knows more than most about it. Criminals tend to come from a community and to have family in the country, so if they break their tag, they will be found again at some point and go to jail. However, the first thing that a terrorist whose only connections in this country are those of a terrorist network will do when he or she is tagged is cut the tag and vanish. A proposal that appears to provide greater security but, in fact, does not, and which sacrifices normal standards of proof as well, is dangerous.

Alan Beith: The right hon. Gentleman gives me the opportunity to make it clear that the Newton committee did not recommend house arrest. It recommended movement restrictions. Such restrictions have to have purposes, primary among which would be to prevent a person who is suspected of associating with terrorists from doing so or furthering their objectives. A combination of restricting a person to a specific locality at certain times, excluding him from certain types of communication and tagging him to determine where he is would provide a basis on which a measure of liberty could be restored to that person, but would also give us some means of knowing that he is not resuming associations of which there is some reasonable evidence.

David Davis: I accept that that was the argument made in the Newton report, but it is the one aspect of that report by which I was not persuaded, mainly because it seemed that there was the ability to escape at some point. That is the difficulty. We cannot take such a risk with someone who presents a lethal threat to the community. I grant that there is a trade-off with regard to allowing more liberty, but against the standards of proof that that are being talked about, I would not make that trade-off. That is my argument. I say to the right hon. Gentleman that I found the Newton report a formidable document and was unpersuaded only by that one small component. That is why, after some deliberation, my party has come to the conclusion that has been set out today.

Mark Oaten: Just to be clear, the right hon. Gentleman's position is black and white: the person is either in jail or they are released.

David Davis: In essence, that is right. With regard to the prospect of a terrorist offence, we concluded that the terrorist must either be under control or not. I do not think that the proposal that the hon. Gentleman made, which I accept is new, is one that we can accept.
	The issue comes back to the sacrifice that has to be made, which is a sacrifice of standards of proof and the presumption of innocence, which I think are fundamentalin other words, the basic standards of liberty that we determine here. Incidentally, I am not at all sure where the requirements for the standards of proof and control orders would fit into the human rights issues raised by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes).

Simon Hughes: First, I am toldI have not done the researchby somebody who I know has talked to members of the right hon. Gentleman's party, Professor John Spencer in Cambridge, that in other European jurisdictions, there are control orders that have been found to be European convention-compliant. Secondly, like my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten), I ask the right hon. Gentleman to keep the door open, to use a phrase that the Home Secretary used. If we are going to get agreement across parties, we need to be prepared not to close doors at this stage of the debate.

David Davis: I accept that and hope that the hon. Gentleman recognises that I have tried to speak in precisely that tenor. As he refers to keeping doors open, let me raise with him a serious problem that arose from the comments made by the hon. Member for Winchester. I was not going to deal with the matter, but I shall do so now. The Liberal Democrats are saying that they are going to vote against continuation of the part 4 order. That gives us one month to come to a conclusion on an issue that is undoubtedly one of the most difficult that the House has faced for some years. I am entirely open-minded in this matter. I have some very strong views about the principles, but we come to the matter with an open mind to try to get some sort of conclusion in the national interest. I have tried to lay out precisely why I have serious concerns, and I say to the Liberal Democrats that I have not come to a conclusion about what we are going to do on part 4, but I would not want to impose an artificial deadline on a decision about the liberty and safety of the British public on terms such as those that have been mentioned.

Mark Oaten: rose

David Davis: I shall give way, since I have taken the hon. Gentleman on directly.

Mark Oaten: As we are all trying to be helpful to each other, let me be helpful to the right hon. Gentleman. If we ran out of time and could not reach an alternative before the derogation was required, one of the things on which we would wish to engage with the Government would be seeking not an annual derogation, but some sort of ring-fenced period for the derogation, on the understanding that we would seek an agreement before the derogation was allowed to continue.

David Davis: I am glad that I have made some progress on behalf of the Government.
	If we implement the Home Secretary's proposals, inasmuch as we know the detail at the moment, there are still likely to be terrorist acts. There is no doubt about that. If we do not implement the proposals, there are still likely to be terrorist acts. The raw truth is that whichever way we go, there will be terrorist acts. People from all parties have said, Oh, surely you can't disagree with the Government on this, because you'll be blamed the next time there is a terrorist act. I think that that is ridiculous and I do not think that the Home Secretary would take that stance either; he has effectively told me so already.
	My judgment is that, if we take the route of protecting our way of life, it will be the best way of protecting our lives as well. That is the way around the matter. Quite understandably given his task and job, the Home Secretary talks all the time about protecting lives, but we have to protect the way of life as well as lives. If we protect the way of life, we will create fewer recruits for terrorist organisations and actually protect our lives better.

Robert Marshall-Andrews: Before the right hon. Gentleman concludes, will he speculate on one matter relating to the Government? Before the House of Lords judgment, there was no indicationperhaps he can help me on thisfrom the Government or anybody else that it was considered necessary to extend detention without trial to British subjects. The House of Lords judgment was then made and we are now told that it is necessary to extend detention without trial to British subjects. Can he speculate on what has happened in truth during that time?

David Davis: The hon. and learned Gentleman tempts me too much. I could speculate about the perverse effects of human rights legislation, but I shall not go down that route.
	Terrorism is not new to this country and we have faced it down before without giving up our fundamental rights. We did not give up our fundamental rights after an almost successful attack on the Cabinet and the Prime Minister in the Brighton bombing, the assassination of a member of the royal family, the Omagh bombing or the deaths of many soldiers and civilians in Northern Ireland. We did not give them up then and we should not abandon them now. In this debate, we have tried to maintain an open and persuasive approach. We will try to be as constructive as possible in the coming weeks, because the issue is fundamental to all our constituents. I reiterate that the best way in which to defend our lives is to defend our way of life.

Tom Harris: I shall begin by responding directly to some of the comments made by the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis). The fallacy that we have faced the threat of terrorism before and that we can face it this time has been raised on many previous occasions. People who make that claim fail to understand the nature of Irish terrorism, which we faced before, and Islamist terrorism, which we face now.
	We were able to face down Irish nationalist terrorism because the previous Government, in which the right hon. Gentleman served, and this Government sat round a table with IRA representatives and reached a political agreement. Disagreements arose about exactly how to proceed, but given that the IRA had a political aim, it was possible for elected politicians to sit down with its representatives and ask, What can we agree on? Where is the common ground? Through that process, which has been long and hard, we have managed to face down the reality of Irish nationalist terrorism in this country.
	I am amazed that the shadow Home Secretary has failed to grasp that, by definition, the people who now plan to engage in terrorism against our people and our nation cannot be reasoned with. On a number of occasions, Osama bin Laden has said that it is perfectly acceptable to kill all American citizens and all Jews, and to destroy the state of Israel. At what point do we sit down around a table to negotiate and ask, Where is the common ground? There is no common ground. For the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden to claim that there is any similarity between what we faced in the '60s, '70s and '80s and what we face now, especially since 11 September 2001, is wholly untrue, and I am surprised that he has tried to advance that particular argument.
	I am disappointed that the title of the debate is Belmarsh Judgment and that the Home Secretary had to come to the House with new proposals to replace the existing arrangements on the detention of terrorist suspects in Belmarsh. I have absolutely no doubt that their lordships made the correct decision as far as the law is concerned, but I am disappointed that we must water down and compromise our arrangements.

Simon Hughes: I am surprised by the hon. Gentleman's view. I hope that all hon. Members accept that laws passed in this place must comply with our national and international obligations. If the Law Lords, who are judges from all over the United Kingdom, say that something is illegal, I hope that he accepts that that is the final say and that it is right for us to re-examine the matter.

Tom Harris: Perhaps I did not make myself clear. I was not suggesting that the Government should ignore the House of Lords rulingI was expressing disappointment that the Law Lords made that ruling in the first place, because I had hoped that taking the legal framework into account they would conclude that the existing arrangements were legal. However, I entirely understand that we are a responsible Government and have to abide by the rules and laws of the land as decreed by the House of Lords.
	I have a question for my hon. Friend the Minister. In Belmarsh there are a dozen or so terroristspeople who were planning to kill and maim citizens of our country, but were free to leave the country at any time simply because they are foreign nationals. The nub of the Lords' objection to the new arrangements is that they do not apply to British nationals. Will my hon. Friend clarify the new arrangements that will apply to foreign nationals and to British citizens? Presumably, British citizens will not be able to escape control orders by leaving the country. Will the provision allowing foreign nationals to leave the country if they wish apply under the new arrangements? In other words, will they be able to escape tagging orders or house arrest by leaving the country?
	Since this is the Liberal Democrats' motion, I should like to deal with some of the points raised by the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten). Many people taking part in this heated debate will claim that there exists no threat to our nation, and that these measures and others introduced by the Government are therefore unnecessary, or will claim, as I do, that there exists a very real threat and that not only are the proposed measures absolutely necessary, but we may have to consider even more strict measures in future if we are to protect our country.

Jeremy Corbyn: I am listening carefully to what my hon. Friend is saying. In the light of this threat, how does he justify the detention of people without trial and without knowledge of the charges against them, given that there is a danger that they have been incarcerated on evidence that would not stand up in court, which leads to the self-serving belief that the guilty are being held in jail, when they may well be innocent? That is a much greater threat than that which exists at present.

Tom Harris: I am not entirely surprised that my hon. Friend expresses that point of view. Looking at the 12 detainees in Belmarsh, any reasonable person might think that there was not enough evidence admissible in courtthat is different from flimsy evidenceto bring about a conviction, while others may think that they have been done bang to rights because they are obviously a clear and present danger to our nation, but it is difficult to understand how anyone could believe that the only reason that they are there is because a vindictive Government is picking on 12 innocent people.

Jeremy Corbyn: I did not say that.

Tom Harris: My hon. Friend says that he did not say that, but that is what he suggested in his intervention.

Jeremy Corbyn: My point, which perhaps I did not make very clearly, is that security services information can be wholly inaccurate. It can be based on people pursuing a vendetta against somebody else in a particular community, and then becomes very dangerous when it gets a life of its own based on a fundamental inaccuracy. I am not suggesting that Ministers go around perversely saying, I want to imprison X, Y or Z, but they might be advised that there is evidence against that person, and that ends up with their imprisonment.

Tom Harris: The Home Secretary has already said that, as with the current system, the new system will be subject to independent judicial oversight. There is nothing more certain to obtain a round of applause during Any Questions? or Question Time than a member of the panel saying, The security services got it wrong on Iraq, so they must be wrong here. That is a nonsensical argument. As we have seen, it is very difficult for the security services of any country to come to hard conclusions about the threat that a nation poses to another nation. It is a different ball game altogether to come up with the conclusion that an individual is planning to be a threat to a particular nation. That evidence is much easier to come by. It is wrong to compare the security services' record in Iraq with their record in the context of the Belmarsh detainees.

Graham Allen: Does my hon. Friend accept that the risks in getting the matter wrong are immense for any Government and any responsible political party? If people perpetrated a 9/11-style atrocity in the UK and the Government had not taken advantage of the ability to take them out of commission, that Government would never be forgiven. However, does he accept that one of the best ways of gaining public and cross-party support is to ensure that our democracy defends itself in the most democratic way possible, given the constraints? Will he therefore keep his mind open to the possibility of pushing back the Government's view a little on some matters, on which we could achieve broad consensus and so keep our people on side on the important issue of ensuring that terrorists do not have a free rein in this country?

Tom Harris: My hon. Friend has perfectly expressed the nub of the argument. I agree that it is important for the protection of our culture and our nation to defend our rights in as democratic a manner as circumstances allow. I believe that the Government's proposed measures do exactly that. That is our fundamental disagreement with the Liberal Democrats. Despite the new-found atmosphere of cross-party co-operation, of which I have never been a great fan, I do not have much confidence in the Liberal Democrats' claims to give the nation's security as high a priority as they should, given the comments of the hon. Member for Winchester.

Mark Oaten: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Tom Harris: Well

Mark Oaten: It is important to give way.

Tom Harris: Of course I shall give way, but I note before I do so that the hon. Gentleman refused to give way to me twice. However, I shall show him the courtesy that he denied me.

Mark Oaten: I appreciate that. However, I should like the hon. Gentleman to acknowledge that I spent four or five paragraphs of my speech emphasising that the Liberal Democrats do not for a single moment underestimate the security risk to this country. It is disingenuous of him to claim something completely different.

Tom Harris: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has thrown his rattle out of the pram. If he had not interrupted me, I would have got around to a more in-depth analysis of his comments.
	I began by saying that people in this country will say either that there is no threat and the measures are unnecessary or, as I do, that there is a huge threat and they are necessary. The Liberal Democrats, unsurprisingly, say both. They claim that there is a threat but that we need to devise new measures. What measures? They spoke about the balance between security and civil liberties. It seems to me that they strike that balance much more at the civil liberties end. That is understandable, given the traditions of the Liberal party. There is nothing dishonourable in that position but I have the right to say that, if their proposals were implemented, it would have a negative effect on security. That is my position.

Patrick Mercer: The hon. Gentleman's understanding of Northern Ireland history is fascinating if rather different from mine. I remember that negotiation was based on hard-nosed military activity as well as other aspects.
	I am interested to hear his comments given that, when the Home Secretary announced the new measures, the Government were most anxiously repatriating British citizens from Guantanamo Bay while the American Government were proving that some of those whom they had set at liberty from Guantanamo Bay had been either killed or captured in subsequent terrorist actions. Is not that an anomaly?

Tom Harris: I am not clear about the hon. Gentleman's point. I have always rejected comparisons between Belmarsh and Guantanamo Bay. I receive many letters claiming that Belmarsh is Britain's Guantanamo Bay. That makes no sense and I have always avoided making that comparison. Would the hon. Gentleman like to intervene again to clarify his point?

Patrick Mercer: If I understand the hon. Gentleman correctly, he is suggesting an extremely hard line to protect this country by taking measures that some would view as illiberal, at the same time as the Government suggest that individuals who have been suspected of terrorism should be returned to this country and put at liberty.

Tom Harris: Yes, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I continue to oppose the US Administration's illegal detention of people at Guantanamo Bay. The Supreme Court of the United States has decreed that those detentions are illegal. Our Government, however, brought proposals to the House of Commons that were voted on, passed by the upper House, and became law. That is somewhat different from what President Bush did in regard to Guantanamo Bay, which was to detain combatants from the Afghan war in a geographical location specifically chosen because it was outside the legal remit of the United States. That is very different, which is why I have always rejected any comparisons between Guantanamo Bay and Belmarsh. I hope that that clears up the matter for the hon. Gentleman.
	The hon. Member for Winchester came out with a curious phrase when he said that we should seek prosecutions in the normal way. This brings me back to the fundamental issue in the debate that we have been having ever since 11 September 2001. I guess that most people said at the time that the world had changed and that it would never be the same again. A few months later, however, most people said, I didn't actually mean that. It was the appropriate thing to say at the time. Now let's get on with our lives. Nothing has really changed. I like to believe that this Governmentespecially the Home Secretary and his predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett)actually meant it when they said that the world had changed for ever. That means that we now have to look again at some of our fundamental liberties, and to decide whether they will help or hinder terrorist networks.
	Surely the purpose of any Government must be to try to obstruct and to collapse all terrorist networks operating in their country. Nothing that the hon. Member for Winchester said would lead me to believe that terrorists would be quaking in their boots at the thought of any new proposals introduced by the Liberal Democrats. Nothing that the hon. Gentleman is proposing would have a serious effect on the terrorists.

Alan Beith: What would the hon. Gentleman say to the right hon. Members for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) and for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin), who served with me on the Newton committee, and who felt that, although there was a serious threat that required measures to deal with it, the measures that the Government had put into forcewhich we were reviewingwere unsustainable, and that other measures therefore had to be found?

Tom Harris: That is why we are having this debate. The right hon. Gentleman should concede that my view on this matter is pretty unambiguous[Interruption.] I am an elected Member of this House and I am entitled to my opinion. The decisions facing all democratically elected politicians since 9/11 were always going to be extremely difficult. We were not elected to this House to make easy decisions. We were elected to make very difficult decisions, and sometimes they are unpopular. My views on this do not concur with those of the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends

Alan Beith: And some of yours.

Tom Harris: Indeed. I have no problem with that. I am prepared to stand up here and argue my corner. Let us have a vote on this, and we shall see whose view prevails.
	The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden said that a suspect's right to a trial and to know the charges against them were fundamental. He said that they were the fundamental rights of a free citizen in this country. Well, he was half right. Those rights are fundamental. People have the right to a fair trial and to know the charges against them, but another right has much greater priority: a far more fundamental right is the right to life.
	Occasionally, I have been a tad unfair in this House to those who have had a legal trainingI do not include myself in that number. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) will forgive me for saying this; she and I served on the Standing Committee for the Proceeds of Crime Billwe sat through 39 sittingsand that was the first time that I had experienced this lawyerly culture. The Proceeds of Crime Bill was designed to allow the Assets Recovery Agency to confiscate such proceeds from people who had not been found guilty of anything in a criminal court, through a civil procedure based on the balance of evidence. That was the fundamental point of that Bill, and it was fought against root and branch by the Liberals and the Conservative party on that particular legal point.
	It was claimed by those with legal training that it was unfair for the Assets Recovery Agency to confiscate anything from someone who had not been proven guilty in a court of law. Perhaps they were right; perhaps they were wrong. I certainly had no problem in supporting those measures, and today the Assets Recovery Agencyin Scotland the Crown Officeis confiscating millions of pounds a week from drug dealers who have not been found guilty in court. We do not have enough evidence to convict them, but nevertheless we are confiscating their homes and cars. We are freezing their bank accounts and taking money from them, then distributing it in the communities that their activities have most damaged.
	Lawyers among us may say that that process is not particularly fair, just as they are making the same arguments today. If the priority of the Government is to safeguard the lives of our citizens and the fabric of the nation, arguments about due process are the equivalent of arguing about the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin.

Graham Allen: My hon. Friend has been very generous in giving way a second time. Was he as surprised as I was to hear from Opposition Front Benchers the implication that none of the people in Belmarsh should have been detained, rather than a suggestion that there should have been greater democratic safeguards or a further judicial or parliamentary review, which some of us would be happy to see? I am sure that the hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) will jump to his feet if I am wrong in that assumption, but I got the strong impression that they think that all those people should be let out under some free market justice system to do what they may have intended to do.

Tom Harris: I get the feeling that the hon. Member for Newark may be about to intervene. The Liberal Democrats challenged the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden during his peroration on whether it should be jail or nothing, and he agreed on that. That leads me to the inevitable conclusion that under a Conservative Government the legislation that all those Members voted for in December 2001 would be scrapped and all the people in Belmarsh, or those who might subsequently be held under house arrest, would be allowed to go free because the threshold of acceptable evidence that they say legal process demands had not been met.

Patrick Mercer: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his generosity in giving way. My right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden was making the point that, above and beyond everything else, it must be clear to the terrorist that our values remain constant and proper, no matter what threat is thrown at us If that means that we have to examine due process and the constitution as it stands, and if it means that those held without charge who cannot logically be brought to court have to be released, so be it. If we do not do that, we give away one of the fundamental freedoms that terrorists are trying to assault.

Tom Harris: I am sure that the many dozens of people watching the debate live on television will reach their own conclusions based on what the hon. Gentleman just said.
	I want to address the issue of wire tap or intercept evidence. I was extremely concerned when the Government announced last year that they were considering the possibility of allowing wire tap evidence in court. The security services were extremely concerned that a crucial source of counter-terrorist information would dry up if wire tap evidence were permissible in court. The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden legitimately pointed out that many other countries, including some of our closest allies, allow intercept evidence in court.
	Let us look at the American example. In many states in America where wire tap is allowed, that source of information has all but dried up because criminalsmembers of the mafia and terroristsunderstand that things that they say on the telephone will inevitably be used against them in court, and are extremely careful not to say anything on the telephone. That is exactly why, I am glad to say, the Government have been very reluctant to conclude that the law should change.

Robert Smith: Had the current legislation continued, as the hon. Gentleman wishes that the Lords had allowed, would not such people say to themselves, What I say on the wire tap could be used to hold me in Belmarsh? Surely whether it is used in court, or as part of a wider net to capture them, they will still know, or assume, that they are being tapped.

Tom Harris: One of the most unhelpful aspects of the wire tap evidence debate is that it has become so high-profile that what the hon. Gentleman says is probably half right. I would have preferred it if this debate about wire tap intercept evidence had a lower profile. I remain firmly of the belief, however, as do the security services, that admitting that type of evidence in court will do nothing to increase the number of convictions, and will result in information that the security services currently use to avoid terrorist atrocities no longer being available. That is a very important point. I firmly believe that terrorist attacks of the order of Madrid, Istanbul, Bali or even 11 September in New York and Washington have already been avoided in this country thanks to the measures introduced in the 2001 Act. I believe that all the 12 people in Belmarsh were involved in conspiring in some kind of terrorist activity, and at least some of them would by now have carried out attacks on this country.
	Given that wire tap evidence is not admissibleand should not be admissible in my viewwhat should the Home Secretary do when confronted with evidence that a particular individual poses a genuine threat to this country? Should he say, We don't have enough evidence to convict him in court, so let him go free? Then, 12 months later, when we have an attack on the London underground or anywhere in the country, the Home Secretary could turn around and say, Well, it could have been worse. We could have locked him up without trial. That seems to be the position of some Opposition Members, and people who are paying attention to this debate will find that incredible.
	The people we are facingthe terrorists who hate our country and culture so muchare willing to risk everything: their possessions, their friends, their family, their lives. It is quite acceptable, and incumbent on us, to realise that in return we should accept a sacrifice. If that sacrifice compromises the level of civil liberties that we enjoy, that is what must happen. The Government are sometimes guilty of claiming that these measures do not represent any kind of compromise on our civil liberties. We must be honest and say that they do. That is what happens when we are in a fight against this kind of terrorismwe compromise our civil liberties, because the alternative does not bear thinking about. There is no point claiming that we have the same civil liberties today as we did three years ago, and neither should we have.
	The hon. Member for Winchester said that the Government were given leeway for three years, following the passage of the 2001 Act. The mood to give the Government leeway, howeverI presume that he means the derogation from the European conventionhas disappeared. He should admit that the reason that that mood has disappearedI agree that it hasis that we have not suffered that kind of terrorist atrocity in the past three years. Some, such as the New Statesman last weeka magazine to which I am ashamed to be a subscriberargue that because there has been no terrorist attack on Britain in the past three years, the threat does not exist and we should not bother with any kind of framework for preventing terrorism. The fact that there has not been a successful attack on British soil does not mean that the threat does not existit means that the security services have been successful in preventing an attack. No one looking at the events of 9/11, Madrid, Bali and Istanbul could conclude that there is not a threat. That does not make sense. Instead of assuming that a threat does not existmy comments are not directed at the hon. Member for Winchesterthe editor of the New Statesman should run a feature next week paying tribute to the work of the security services, which have saved God knows how many lives as a result of their intelligence work.
	In conclusion, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden repeated something that is often said in this debate. He said that by compromising our civil liberties we are giving some kind of victory to the terroriststhat changing our way of life and giving up some of our freedoms is a victory for terrorism. No, it is not. [Interruption.] I am not speaking on behalf of the Home SecretaryI am expressing my own opinion. There would be a victory for terrorism if a massive bomb went off in a crowded location in one of our capital cities or in any other city. There would be a victory for terrorists if a jumbo jet crashed into the Palace or any other location in the country. Terrorism can be defeated by political, military and intelligence means. Claiming that we would give terrorists the final victory if we denied people held in Belmarsh a trial may receive a round of applause on Any Questions?, but it does not sit right with the vast majority of my constituents or, I suspect, the constituents of other hon. Members.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Let me point out to the House that approximately 40 minutes are left, with four hon. Members seeking to catch my eye. Perhaps they would show a little more restraint than we have seen so far.

Alan Beith: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Harris) has invented a category of peoplenone of them have attended today's debatewho do not believe that there is a serious terrorist threat to this country. I have heard no such person speak today, and I have more reason than anyone else in the Chamber to be aware of the extent to which the work of our security and intelligence services has preserved us from major terrorist actions over a considerable period. My hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) made that point in opening the debate, and we all join together in paying tribute to their work. However, that does not absolve us from the need to examine the legislation and see whether it is right, whether it serves its purpose, whether it deals with the full range of threats and whether it is sustainable over a period of time.
	The key phrase in the legislation is about the nature of the threat as a
	public emergency threatening the life of the nation.
	The threat that faces us is not short-term, and we cannot envisage its early cessation. Indeed, it is difficult to envisage the circumstances in which the loose al-Qaeda network and other groups loosely connected with it would want to desist from their terrorist activity. We cannot act, therefore, on the basis of emergency short-term legislation such as regulation 18B, which was used in the second world war. I was only a baby at the time, but people knew that the war would be over in two or three years, and that we would either win or lose it. We do not know when the present terrorist threat will end, so we need sustainable legislation. There are not many Members in the Chamber, with the possible exception of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart, who believe that the legislation that the Lords recently challenged and effectively overruled is sustainable. There is a widespread view that we cannot maintain a system of indefinite detention without trial on a ministerial decision. The Government clearly now accept that view, and are working on that basis to devise alternative proposals.
	I served as deputy chairman of the Newton committee, but I did not have to work very hard in that capacity, as the committee was well chaired by Lord Newton and we were well supported by the group of senior Members, Privy Councillors of all parties, and one who had no political affiliation. It was wide ranging in its experience and there was no fundamental disagreement over the conclusions that were reached. I give away no secrets when I say that the only subject on which we had real difficulty reaching an agreed wording was what we debated last nightincitement to religious hatred, and how far legislation should go in attempting to deal with it. There was relatively little difficulty in reaching agreement on the matters that we are debating today and what we should propose to the Government.
	We found many other things wrong with the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. The Newton committee was set up because the 2001 legislation was rushed through both Houses of Parliament on the basis that its purpose was to deal with a short-term emergency. In fact, it was stuffed with measures that had nothing to do with short-term needs and nothing to do with terrorism, which further inhibited the ability of the two Houses to get it right at the time. The committee was set up because it became clear that the measure could not be passed through the other place unless some concession were made. The concession was steadily tightened up: first, it was a review committee, then a review committee whose report had to be debated in both Houses, then a committee whose report would, if it were not debated, lead to the entire lapse of the legislation. That reflected the degree of concern felt in both Houses that, because of the immediate circumstances, they were being pressed to push through a measure that they were deeply unhappy about, which required much further and more detailed consideration.
	The one point of anger that I would like to express at this stage, before returning to the happy consensual atmosphere of the debate, is that the Government's initial response to the Newton report was misplaced macho posturing. Their initial reaction to the report seemed to suggest that none of the recommendations were of any value whatever and that the Government would carry on very much as they were. I realise that the present Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety took no part in that, but it set a tone for relative inaction over the next 12 months. The committee had proposed that the Government should prepare an alternative to the 2001 legislation, which would need to be renewed or replaced because the derogation would come up in just over a year's time and the legislation would lapse.
	I am pleased that things seem to have moved on, largely because of the House of Lords judgment and the coincidental change of Home Secretary, which has also helped. I very much welcome the way in which the present Home Secretary is approaching the matter. That is not to say that I disagreed in all respects with the previous Home Secretary. He made it pretty clear on the record that, in respect of an issue that we shall come to in a few moments, he would have welcomed the ability to use intercept evidence in court, but had to be satisfied that he could secure general agreement among the various Government bodies concerned. He certainly showed continuing interest in intercept and set up further consideration of it even before the Newton committee had raised it.
	The Newton package had two main aspects: making prosecution easier and more feasible, and proposing alternative measures where prosecution could not be pursued. The measures to make prosecution more practicable included new offences and offences that could be aggravated by connection with terrorism. The committee drew from experience in other countries and in other areas of law. One important aspect of pursuing prosecution was the idea of having a security-cleared investigating judge as part of the process, and another was using intercept evidence.
	I continue to believe, as Newton recommended, that we should remove the blanket ban on the use of intercept evidence. The law should allow it, but that is not to say that it will solve either the existing Belmarsh cases or all the cases in the future. In many circumstances, it would be prejudicial to use it. The main purpose of intercept activity is the gathering of intelligence, which, as the Minister rightly said earlier, plays a valuable role in disruption. It is not collected on an evidential basis, but it is possible to collect it on that basis and use it in certain limited circumstances. We should not preclude it, because there may well be cases in the future where it would be both relevant and helpful. The present blanket ban is difficult to accept.
	In my two capacities, I am aware of at least five different reasons why various parts of the system are uncomfortable about the use of intercept evidence in this way. I am not certain about the current balance of opinion about which reason the Government regard as the most important. They are important reasons, but in my opinion, none outweighs the benefits stemming from limited availability of the intercept option. It should be part of the package.
	On the other side of the page, as it were, the committee proposed a series of measures that have been echoed by both the Minister and the Conservative spokesman, although the latter questioned them in one respect. The measures deal with people about whom serious suspicions exist, but in respect of whom there is insufficient evidence to lead to a successful prosecution.
	The measures did not include house arrest, but did include restriction of movement. That was chosen because it allows potential links with other terrorist activists to be brokenlinks that could allow the person who would otherwise be detained to have a role in the preparation of further terrorist acts. The Government's proposals include many of the committee's proposed measures.
	However, the question then facing the committee has been raised several times in the debate. It is, What about UK citizens? That is one of the most difficult issues. When we asked Are there no UK citizens about whom similar suspicions are held?, we could not get a negative answer. That is, no one could say No, we have only ever come across foreigners about whom we have such suspicions.
	My judgment is that there are UK citizens about whom similar suspicions have been raised. They will have had to be dealt with in other ways, such as by prosecution for other offences, or by surveillance or preventive and disruptive activity of various kinds. There is therefore both an anti-discrimination argument and a practical argument against the use of measures exclusively against foreign citizens. The Government were really saying, We can get this little group under these measures, but not really anyone else by the use of even remotely similar measures.
	It must have been clear to everyone, as soon as the Lords' judgment was delivered, that we could not extend to UK citizens detention without trial on the decision of a Minister. That is so foreign to everything that wewith the possible exception of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart believe and accept that there is no way that either House of Parliament could admit it into the range of anti-terrorism measures.
	It is all right for Members of Parliament or television commentators to say, This is an important thing that we have to do to fight terrorism. What about a Muslim who, by some happenstance of association, is threatened with Executive detention without any due process? The whole picture is very different for a person like that. The same was true for quite a few Irish people, both in Northern Ireland and in Great Britain, when they were subject to other limitations. In their situation, matters looked rather different.
	It was essential to the basis of our civil liberties that other measures be found, and the committee felt that the Government should have been looking for measures appropriate for dealing with UK citizens about whom there was the suspicion of terrorist activity.
	In the interests of time, I shall turn now to my final pointthe key concern that we cannot be content with ministerial decision and subsequent judicial review, especially in respect of a process as hidebound as that of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission. The reason is that the people concerned are unable to see the evidence against them. They cannot produce an alibi against a piece of evidence used in SIAC, because they do not know that it is alleged that, say, they attended a particular meeting on a particular day. Therefore, because they do not know the evidence involved, even the most cast-iron alibi cannot be used.
	My fundamental point is that making it possible for a Minister to lock up or otherwise restrict the liberty of a UK citizen because it is thought that that person might have terrorist associationseven though the evidence looks promisingwill not be acceptable in either House of Parliament.
	I therefore want to challenge an important statement that the Minister made. She said that, if this matter were to be given over to the judiciary, the Home Secretary would be abrogating his responsibility for the security of this country. That is not the case. We give the Home Secretary responsibilities to carry out, and he and the police have to bring people to court. He is not abrogating his responsibility for the safety of citizens against crime if he does not pick out a dangerous violent criminal or a repeated sex offender and say, We're not going to try you because I know you're guilty, so I'm going to put you in prison.
	That is not abrogating his responsibility. The Home Secretary allows the police to arrest a person and due process to take place. Therefore, it is no more true that he would be abrogating his responsibility if he ensured that it was a judicial decision and not an Executive decision that might lead even to the limitations that we have talked about today. Obviously, he or the police might initiate that processit could go as high as the Home Secretaryand he might be abrogating his responsibility if he ignored the repeated pleas to set the process in motion for an individual or group. However, he is erecting a false argumentand he cannot be guilty of the chargeby saying that he cannot give the responsibility to a judge because that would be failing the nation. He would be serving the nation, although judges might not want to be put in that position. However, the public would have much more confidence, and the legislation would be more sustainable, if a judicial and not an Executive decision were made to take away someone's liberty in circumstances where they had not been found guilty of anything, but there were reasonable grounds for suspecting that they may be about to do something very dangerous.
	We all recognise how difficult such decisions are, but we want a process in which the public and both Houses of Parliament can have confidence. We are starting a process that might lead us there within a reasonable period. I just wish that it had started when the Committee first reported.

Ross Cranston: I congratulate the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) on the measured way in which he made his proposals, although I do not accept all of them. The only blot was when he bracketed us with Burma and North Korea, which is simply incorrect.
	Much of the debate about this issue is simplistic. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Harris) said, it often equates Belmarsh with Guantanamo Bay, but they are entirely different. It also engages in rhetoric when the Government are accused of betraying human rights.
	My hon. Friend the Minister was absolutely right to start with the threat, which is the position taken by many of my constituents when I talk to them about it. They start with the threat demonstrated by 9/11, Spain, Bali and Istanbul. They also refer to what is, in my terms, the pre-enlightenment, anti-democrat, religious fanaticism under which this country is targeted. They also take up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) that, at most, this country has detained only 17 people. The comparisons with other countries, such as France and so on, are often false because considerably more people are detained there, even though there is an investigating judge. I am not suggesting that we should react in a populist or utilitarian way. We should approach the issue pragmatically, but as a matter of principle. The Government's critics often approach the matter in absolutist terms and do not engage with the debate.
	The shadow Home Secretary started with Lord Hoffman and his account of individual rights, but that is only half the story. Too often these days, we focus exclusively on individual and human rights, but that fails to take account of the history of civil rights and liberties in this country. To put it crudely, in the 19th century, the struggle was for democratic institutions and for whole groups of people to vote, assemble and join associations of workers, so that everyone and not just an elite could benefit. We must take into account the fact that we have democratic institutions. We must also take into account the fact that when we talk about rights and liberties, we mean the rights and liberties of groups of people, not just individuals. The Labour party had difficulties with that during the 1930s when Sir Stafford Cripps said that the democratic legislature could overcome property rights. That was an unacceptable position. However, we have a democratic systema great achievement. It may be flawed, but accounts that state that we have an overpowering Executive are lazy and do not take account of reality.
	That 19th-century struggle was also about individual rights, which have of course been overlaid by the great human rights documents of the 20th centurythe universal declaration and regional documents such as the European convention on human rights and fundamental freedoms. In the 20th century, we had to reconcile democracy and individual human rights.
	The shadow Home Secretary spoke of the great harm caused to individuals by imprisonment. There is no doubt about that, but in our society we have always accepted that we can deliberately impose grave harm on individuals to lessen the risk to otherswe do that every day in the criminal courts; I do that when I send people to prison because it is done in accordance with certain fundamental principles. The human rights documents themselves accept that democracy and individual liberty have to be reconciled. For example, as we know, there are provisions whereby Governments can act in ways that are necessary for a democratic society, so rights have to give way to that.
	It is possible for democracy and human rights to be reconciled, but my main point is that we must take into account democratic institutions and the great 19th-century struggle, so that we have a system in which all can participate democratically. Instead of seeing democratic institutionsin this case, the Home Secretary, accountable to Parliamentas a blot on the system, we should applaud them. As we are debating a Liberal Democrat motion, I shall quote what Lord Carlile said recently in The Guardian:
	A great deal of rhetoric has surrounded this subject. The demonisation by some commentators of
	he referred to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), the former Home Secretary
	over the issue is totally contrary to my observation, occasionally at close quarters, of a Home Secretary giving honest primacy to national security and public safety.
	I certainly agree with those sentiments.
	How do we reconcile democratic institutions acting for the collective good with the human rights of individuals? There are three overarching principles. First, actions must be justified democratically, in Parliament and to the public. Secondly, we cannot put security concerns in an absolute and unqualified way, which accords with another principlethat of shared humanity, recognised in the Human Rights Act 1998. A corollary of that is that any response by the Government must be balanced and proportionate, and take individual rights into account. Thirdly, we must act in accordance with law. That does not mean that we must necessarily act in accordance with the way in which the ordinary criminal courts operate.
	In the article to which I referred earlier, Lord Carlile said, when talking about the steps that might be taken to address the problem of the Belmarsh judgment:
	The second step might be to develop a trial procedure that would ensure the protection of sensitive intelligence. This may mean thinking beyond the conventional reliance on jury trial.
	He went on to say that although he, as a criminal practitioner, believes fundamentally in trial by jury, in some cases that may have to give way. We do not necessarily need to have an adversarial system. The shadow Home Secretary said that it might be possible to have a two-judge process, whereby one judge screened the evidence before it went to court.
	I do not have time to comment on the Government proposals in detail. The Liberal Democrat suggestion about deportationthat somehow we should have memorandums and framework agreements with other countries and not act until they are testedis not sensible. We need also to think about creating new offences and a reformed judicial process. The control orders suggested by the Government also seem a sensible way forward.
	I do not believe in absolute solutions to such difficult questions. There are no easy answers, but I am right behind the Government in their attempt to grapple with these difficult issues.

Tim Boswell: I have no particular expertise to offer the House in relation to terrorism, and no legal qualification, but we all have a common duty to address the civil liberties of this country's subjects, as has been done eloquently in this debate. It has been generally accepted, with possible reservations, that we all know that there is a problem with terrorism, and it is possible to have slightly different interpretations about how best to deal with it.
	I commented in an intervention that only a handful of people at Belmarsh had been subject to detention orders, and I am very doubtful whether that covers the whole population of potential terroristsI think notso that would not be a sufficient reaction even if it were necessary. There is an argument for having terrorists out in the community where they can be surveyed and we can keep an eye on them, but it is quite proper at least for the Home Secretary, who is a politically accountable officer, to consider whether detention should be part of the portfolio of measures that can be used against terrorism. I may have reservations about how to do that, and about the process, but it at least should be considered.
	In some matters, Back Benchers and loyal Opposition parties have to defer to and trust Ministers in relation to the conclusions that they reach, if only because more evidence is available to them than to those outside the loop. I certainly do not question Ministers' motives, and I welcome the tone of the Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety in this debate. We are all trying to feel our way towards an acceptable solution, but the fact that we start with that presumption of trust should not entitle us to give Ministers a blank cheque to do whatever they wish.
	Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis), I am concerned that there is a risk that we might stimulate terrorism in the act of trying to overcome it. Beyond that, there is also the possibility of paying too high a price for any element of extra security that we may gain by taking certain actions. I have experienced the uncomfortable position of lobbying Ministers and getting them to lobby the Egyptian authorities in relation to one of my constituents who was detained for a very long time and eventually tried and convicted in Cairo, on evidence that would not have been acceptable to the House or to the British courts, for membership of Hizb-ut-Tahrir, and then being told by an Egyptian official, Well, you lock up people like that as well, don't you? I found that very uncomfortable.
	We should all remember that any action that we decide to takeeven if we take it for good reasonsis not cost-free to the citizen. I had the interesting and somewhat disconcerting experience exactly a month ago of being peremptorily stopped in my car and being searched by Ministry of Defence police in uniform under the provisions of the Terrorism Act 2000. All I hope in that matter is that they acted perfectly correctly, that they were not acting on information relayed to them, and perhaps that their action was proportionate and targeted to the matter at handI had some doubts about thatbut that shows what can happen to any of us. That was a very trivial matter, and I am willing to pay that price, but of course the process on which Ministers' views were overturned by the Lords, and which they are seeking in a sense to replicate with control orders, would greatly increase the inconvenience to citizens.
	I must say, even as an amateur in the field of human rights, that at the time of the initial emergency legislation, when it was confined to foreign nationals, I anticipated what would happen in the Lords three years later, when it was struck down on the grounds of partiality. Of course, the collective approach of Ministers has been to say the answer is to make whatever we come up with applicable to British nationals as well.
	I emphasise to Ministers that, even if they do not intend, for example, to use powers to lock up the shadow Cabinet on 1 AprilI notice that the Minister is responding with interest to that, but I am making a serious pointany redress by way of appeal would take place ex post facto by judicial review, and would not be immediate. If there were a delay, it would not be cost-free. Of course, foreign nationals have been detained under the existing legislation, with all the horror involved, yet they have had no redress for some considerable time.
	Conservative Members have what my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition described as serious misgivings about the process. Given that there is a common objective, process is central to the debate. My reading is that the Government object not to the concept of a trial and judicial process but to the malign consequences that might arise from that, such as damaging sources or risking individuals, and the possible inability to adduce certain kinds of evidence to the satisfaction of a court.
	I have taken some notice of the deliberations of the Newton committee of Privy Councillors of all parties, partly on the back of the extremely eloquent speech made by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), and also because Lord Newton was my first boss nearly 40 years agoI echo the accolades that have been given to him. The committee made a careful effort to examine the possible constraints in the use of intercept evidence and the judicial process, and tried to find out whether they could be overcome. The Government should consider more carefully the possibility of preparing or filtering evidence through a judicial process before it is considered by a judge.
	If there is evidence out there, it must be considered by someone. We hope that it would be considered by a judge before any detention or serious constraint were contemplated. The alternative choice would be for a Minister to consider it, but I would prefer a judge to do that, given the right safeguards. Ministers must rememberas we all mustthat however high they might be, the law is above them. Frankly, the Government, to put it delicately, have not been blind to the real threat to our society, but they have evinced an authoritarian attitude. I find that rather distasteful, and it is one reason why I have signed up to the Conservative civil liberties group. It is important for hon. Members on both sides of the House to take such matters seriously and to witness to them. Ministers should not have a free run in this.
	Ministers, especially, should understand that there is no middle way between the right thing to do and authoritarianismthey must do the right thing. It would be much better to find a system that strives to achieve judicial results and goes on to punish wicked people for what they are doing wrong, but does not achieve that by extending the powers of individual Ministers. We need a measure of self-restraint. There must be a better way than allowing the Home Secretary to lock people up without giving us evidence that would stand up in court.

Vera Baird: I want both Front-Bench spokespersons to be able to deal with all points raised, so I shall be brief. However, whatever hon. Members do, they should not think that I am being brief because my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Harris) said everything that I would have said.
	Everyone agrees that prosecution is the game of choice. The Tories, however, have to accept that realistically there must be a fall-back position in case prosecution is not practical. Their inquisitorial model does not help in the slightest. It would be difficult to graft it on to our system. We have never had an inquisitorial model. Although we have coroners, both sides are represented during proceedings, so there is an adversarial aspect there. What would happen if there were an appeal under such a model? Proceedings in the Court of Appeal would be adversarial, as would an appeal in the House of Lords, so the model would not slide into the existing system.
	The analysis of the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) did not help us. He seemed to think that the calibre of judge would somehow improve if the procedures were swapped. At present, the Special Immigration Appeals Commission gathers all the material, perhaps subject to public interest immunity certificates. However, no Minister would sign a PII certificate while knowing that it covered material of benefit to the defendant. SIAC in effect receives all relevant material, and then both sides get it, subject of course to the special advocate procedure. The Home Office gets it all and the defence, in one way or another, gets it all.
	The special advocate has to take his instructions first, which is very difficult, and then cannot speak once he has seen the material. When not in closed session, the procedure is ordinary. The defence barrister deals with all the open evidence, and then the special advocate deals with all the closed evidence and tries to attack it as best he can on the limited instructions that he has been able to receive. Key to that is that SIAC is well aware that the material has not been properly and thoroughly cross-examinedit is aware of the limitations.
	The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden argued that an inquisitorial judge might somehow be able to make up for the deficiencies that fall to the defence, but that is not correct. SIAC knows that the material has not been scrutinised as fully as it would have liked, and must take it on that basis. I know the judiciary involved with SIAC, and I am satisfied that they also adopt an extremely high standard, and I will be very surprised if they do not insist that the material must satisfy them beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, we must look, as everybody agrees, to prosecution, but we must do so within our own court system model.
	I make the serious suggestion that it would be prudent for the Home Secretary to send all the material about all these people to the Director of Public Prosecutions as quickly as possible to see whether the appropriate independent key professional can decide to prosecute all, one, none or any of them. That would clearly appear to be an independent decision based on the evidence, which had nothing to do with the Home Secretary. That should be done straight away.
	The Home Secretary also has the power to order further investigation. That is an important point, because it is far from clear that there has been a thorough investigation with a view to prosecution. One sees press reports and one hears lawyers acting for the Belmarsh detainees saying clearly that the detainees have not even been interviewed. If there had been an investigation with a view to prosecution, they would have been interviewed. I am not suggesting that they would have confessed, but interviews can be extremely important. If that position is correctit comes from the mouths of lawyers whom I know well and who I cannot imagine are saying what is incorrectthere has not been an attempt to investigate properly with a view to prosecution in at least all the cases of the people in Belmarsh. That is crucial.
	If the DPP finds in given cases that he cannot prosecute, he should be asked whether any of the proposals of the Newton committee assist him in doing so. He should make recommendations about that. If, even with all the widening that Newton advocates, with independent scrutiny by the DPP, and given the procedures under the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which allow more hearsay and bad character evidence to be considered, it is not possible to prosecute and we cannot deport all the people, we will have to fall back on some restraint. The Tories will have to accept that that is realistic, as they were ready to accept the point in debate on part 4 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. They must keep an open mind on that, as the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden said they would.
	The issue of control orderspossibly falling short of house arrestmay boil down to who comes first: the Home Secretary making a decision that is scrutinised by a judge, or the Home Secretary making an application and a judge conducting the initial scrutiny. I appreciate and understand why the Home Secretary thinks that the defence of the realm is a responsibility of the Executive and not of the court. I would prefer the first decision to be taken by the court, but if that is not the Home Secretary's view, and in the end he and the Government find that incompatible with their responsibilities, my right hon. Friend has a duty to shoulder the entire burden of safeguarding the defence of the realm. If it has to be that way round, and so long as there is an appeal that is automatic, immediate and covers all the facts, perhaps even such a suggestion could be acceptable.
	I have a strong sense that somewhere in one or other of the strands that we have debated today we will find a common answer. The very fact that we are debating this issue and seeking consensus on it means not that our values have been undermined but that we are determined that democracy will find a way.

David Heath: What a fine note on which to end the Back-Bench contributions. With perhaps one exception, I am grateful to all the right hon. and hon. Members who spoke in an excellent debate, which shines as an oasis of rationality in the turmoil and pre-electoral bombast in which we so often indulge.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) and the Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety set the tone of the debate in seeking consensus and points on which we could agree on the appropriate responses to what we all acknowledge is an extremely serious problem and a difficult dilemma for any Government. The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) continued in the same tone and I am grateful to him for his remarks. He identified some of the same problems as we do with the present position and, indeed, some of the same responses to it. He stated the problem clearly at the outset when he said that the balance we had to strike was between defence of life and defence of way of life.
	We have to consider the proposals before us and their deficiencies when measured against our norms of justice in terms of the standard of proof, reasonable belief and the rights of the accused to know the case against them, to argue the case and to be proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt. We would normally expect all those things of a judicial system in this country and we should surrender them only with great care.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) made a thoughtful speech, in which he brought to bear the knowledge that he has gleaned from and contributed to the Newton committee in his plea for sustainable legislation, which we have not had until now.
	The hon. and learned Member for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston) spoke of reconciling the different pressures on the Government and referred to three tests of actionthat it should be justified, proportionate and in accordance with law. I cannot disagree with his scholarly analysis.
	The hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) made, as usual, a sensible and reasoned speech. We do indeed have to accept that there is a presumption of trust in the Minister and her colleagues. They are in possession of information that we do not have, so in some respects we have to trust their judgment of what is best. However, that does not remove from us the responsibility of questioning their judgment and testing it against the norms of a democratic society.
	The hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) brought the Back-Bench contributions to a fitting conclusion. She restated our primary point, that prosecution must be the preferred option. It must always be better to put someone before a court of law, if we can find the right means of doing so.
	The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Harris) had something of the air of a braggart swaggering into a bar looking for a fight with anyone he could find. He was to be disappointed. Today, we are looking not for a fight, but for a reasoned argument regarding the way in which we should proceed. Most of those present in the Chamber are not prepared to throw away 1,000 years of British history and British jurisprudence simply to satisfy what might have been interpreted as prejudices on the hon. Gentleman's part. We seek a more reasoned way through the morass.
	What is in the proposals? My hon. Friend the Member for Winchester made a strong case that house arrest is not an acceptable option, but simply imprisonment by another means. We believe, and I think that many people would agree, that for that to be imposed by ministerial fiat, without judicial oversight and without the safeguards that we normally build into the law, is a dangerous course. If we are to imprison people, let us say that we are doing so and let us have a judicial process that makes it appropriate for us to deprive them of their liberties, but let us not pretend that we are not doing that.
	I can understand why Labour Members bridled at the comparison with totalitarian countries that employ house arrestwe are not that sort of country, and neither should we ever be. But let us also recognise that if we were to ask, say, the Government of Burma what their system was for house arrest and they replied, Of course, it is entirely done through judicial oversight, because although the decision is made by a Minister, it can be reviewed by a hand-picked panel of judges who will meet in secret and not tell the person involved what evidence is before them and what the charge is, we would raise our eyebrows. We would say that we were not convinced that that was an entirely democratic or judicial system.
	There are serious arguments against house arrest, but control orders are a different matter. I was disturbed when the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden appeared to take what was described as a black-and-white view and said that we should either lock people up or let them go. There must be gradations below that and safeguards that we can use to protect our citizenship. If we are to have control orders, they must be under judicial oversight. My hon. Friend the Member for Winchester made the point that we should formulate them in such a way as to ensure that they do not require derogation from the European convention on human rights, which is clearly possible in light of the experience of other countries. If they are to be reviewed, we must be clear what the terms of the review are. Whatever form of judicial system is used to review, will it look into matters of fact or simply matters of law? That is a critical question on which the Minister needs to respond. If it is essential, as the Minister says it is, for the Home Secretary himself to control the process of control orders and initiate them, is it still the Government's view that an order should extend to the family and friends of the person upon whom it is placed? Is that an essential element of the Government's package?
	By far the favourite option is that of prosecution, as the hon. and learned Member for Redcar said. We have had a series of debates about the use of intercept evidence and I still do not understand the arguments about the intrinsic difference between intercept evidence and electronic surveillance evidence, for example, and why one is admissible and the other is not. I am still not clear why such evidence cannot be used in some cases to ensure that somebody who should be prosecuted is prosecuted and imprisoned if they are found guilty. That extends well beyond terrorism to serious organised crime and other offences.
	If we believe that terrorists do not think that their phones are being tapped, we believe in a very different world fron the one that I think we live in. Equally, if we need new offences, let us look at new offences. One of the problems is that we can prosecute for a conspiracy, but not for a conspiracy of one. If there is a lacuna in the law, let us fill it. Let us look at the suggestions from the Newton committee and do as the hon. and learned Member for Redcar saidpass the matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions and let him give an opinion as to what would make the prosecution that much simpler.
	We need to look at novel judicial methods as well. The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden said that he was not attracted to European models, and we know why. Let him look at Scotland, a jurisdiction a little closer to home. I mischievously suggested that we extend the jurisdiction of Scotland to England and Wales in order to have something on which we could build a part-inquisitorial model. Let us have the proposals at the earliest opportunity. Ideally, let us have them before 13 March, so that we can discuss them. If that is not possible, let us at least make progress in that direction.
	I need no reminding about the dangers of terrorism: I was in Congress on Capitol hill in Washington DC on 11 September 2001 and saw the evidence of terrorist action with my own eyes. We face a serious threat, and the difficulty is finding an equilibrium between providing freedom from fear or worse for our citizens, which is every Government's duty, and providing freedom under law, which is what we are looking to the Government to provide.

Hazel Blears: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall reply to the debate.
	I shall try to address as many of the issues raised by hon. Members as possible. The debate has ranged across a number of important, complex matters that go to the heart of our legal and constitutional framework. I am not sure that I can do all those issues justice in the 10 minutes allowed to me, but I shall do my very best.
	This afternoon's excellent debate has been filled with considered views, and some challenging issues that go to the heart of how we organise ourselves in this country have been raised. We have had the benefit of the expertise of hon. Members whose knowledge is more extensive than mine. In particular, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) is a member of the Newton committee and the debate benefited enormously from his contribution.
	A number of my hon. Friends have made useful contributions. Given his robust approach, I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Harris) sits on the Government Benches. I have no doubt that I shall call on him to be my champion when I face a formidable array of Opposition Members. I am delighted that he felt able to make such a robust contribution.
	Several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten), raised our move to obtain, where appropriate, memorandums of understanding with third countries on the deportation of some foreign nationals. We have made contact with several Governments and are now actively engaged in discussions. I am pleased to say that those discussions are going well, but more remains to be done. We want to secure an overarching memorandum of understanding with each country to allow us to make tailored agreements for individuals. Such agreements will not be legally binding, but those countries will enter into them. We cannot pre-test those agreementsI do not know how we could do sobut if we were about to deport somebody, they would have a right of appeal and the decision to deport under the memorandums of understanding would be subject to intense judicial scrutiny at that point.

Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Minister confirm that any agreement reached in those discussions with other countries will be compatible with the European convention on human rights, particularly in respect of the death penalty and the use of torture against detainees?

Hazel Blears: Yes. That is exactly the kind of territory in which we are seeking proper assurances. The Government want to abide by our international obligations and we want reassurances on those points, which is why the discussions are so active.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart made some useful points about the different threat posed by international terrorism as compared with domestic terrorism, which we have faced in the past. He made three points. First, it is difficult to conduct political negotiations with people who want to destroy our way of life and values. Secondly, the terrorists whom we face are committed to mass civilian murders rather than small, targeted terrorist events. Thirdly, those terrorists are not averse to using suicide bombers. In the past, terrorists tried to maximise their chances of survival, but we now face mass civilian casualties and suicide bombing. The nature of the threat is significantly different from that which we have faced in the past.
	My hon. Friend asked whether the travel restrictions would apply to British citizens and foreign nationals. In respect of control orders, we will consider the appropriate conditions to meet the threat that faces us. Travel restrictions on foreign nationals and British citizens would be part of that consideration, because we do not want to discriminate against people inappropriately. We would consider whether the conditions were targeted at the threat that we face from those individuals.
	The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed rightly said that the threat will go on for a long time. That is why we need sustainable legislation in this field, rather than simply responding and reacting to every event as it occurs. Through the legislation that we are formulating, we are trying to come up with a framework that can be adapted to events. That is why we are saying that it should apply to all forms of terrorism that face usnot only international terrorism, but domestic terrorismand to British citizens as well as foreign nationals. In that way, we can tailor the control orders that we make in accordance with the threat.
	I am pleased that the right hon. Gentleman acknowledged that intercept is not the solution in every case. He was careful to try to confine it, and I am glad that he said that it is limited in its use. The costs and benefits of using intercept are a matter of judgment. We have taken our decision, but we will keep the matter under close review. I was pleased that the Newton report made a number of recommendations, which the Government looked at carefully in formulating current policy, and that it said that steps short of detention, such as tagging, curfews and restrictions on movement, could well be appropriate. I understand the right hon. Gentleman's party's difference with us on who should make the initial decision and I am sure that that will continue to be a matter of debate. Clearly, as he suggested, judges will have a view on whether they welcome taking on the decision making or whether that might be appropriate for the Executive.
	On intercept, it may be useful for the House if I say that America does not have the same co-operation between intelligence and law enforcement agencies as there is in the UK. In fact, in some cases the intelligence services in America are prohibited by statute from passing intelligence on to law enforcement. The unique, close relationship between the police and intelligence agencies in this country is not mirrored in America, and there is no evidence that America or other European countries can use intercept and get more convictions against terrorists than we can. The review considered that.
	My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston), in an excellent and thoughtful contribution, showed us not only his knowledge but his insight into and understanding of the issues. His analysis of the justification for action, our shared humanity and the need for balance and proportionality was excellent, and I am grateful for his measured and sincere support.
	The hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) made a typically thoughtful contribution. He said that he would trust Ministers, but not offer us a blank cheque. I entirely understand that he will want to scrutinise exactly what goes on. He raised the important issue of whether the control orders risk stimulating terrorism and further radicalisation. I am acutely conscious of that issue and one strand of our counter-terrorism strategy deals with prevention. That is not just about the harder measures, but working with the Muslim community in particular, and with young people, on solving some of the international issues that lead to radicalisation. It is important that we do that in conjunction with a range of other measures.
	My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) again rightly emphasised that prosecutions are our preferred route. She said that the Conservative Opposition would need a fall-back position. We have all been worried by the polarisation of the Conservatives, who said simply that we should either proceed through trial and prosecution or release with no controls. That is not a tenable position.
	We propose a spectrum of measures through the control orders to allow us to tailor the measures so that they are proportionate to the threat, thus meeting the concerns of the House of Lords about disproportionality. Simply having a system whereby we either lock people up through a conventional judicial trial or allow them to go completely free with no controls will not meet the threat, in the view of the people of this country. I am worried about that.
	My hon. and learned Friend gave an excellent explanation of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission. We conduct investigations and we will refer matters to the Crown Prosecution Service, if that is the right thing to do.
	We have had an excellent debate. It is always our approach to prosecute when we can. We believe that the control orders are a proper response to the House of Lords. They are proportionate and not discriminatory.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:
	The House divided: Ayes 172, Noes 285.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
	Mr. Deputy Speaker forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House notes with approval the Government's intention to respond to the House of Lords judgment on Belmarsh by continuing to take all necessary measures to protect the security of the country and its citizens while acting in compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business),
	That, at this day's sitting, proceedings on the Motion in the name of Mr Peter Hain relating to Standards and Privileges may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour. [Gillian Merron.]
	Question agreed to.

DEFERRED DIVISIONS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 41A (3) (Deferred divisions),
	That, at this day's sitting, deferred Divisions shall not apply to the Question on the Motion in the name of Mr Peter Hain relating to Standards and Privileges.[Gillian Merron.]
	Question agreed to.

Standards and Privileges

Motion made, and Question proposed,
	That this House
	(i) approves the Third Report of the Committee on Standards and Privileges (House of Commons Paper No. 233); and
	(ii) accordingly suspends Mr Jonathan Sayeed, Member for Mid Bedfordshire, from the service of the House for two weeks.[Gillian Merron.]

Jonathan Sayeed: I accept that a complaint was brought because of ineffective internal controls in a company in which I had an interest and that as a Member of Parliament I was negligent in not checking the actions of that company. For that I apologise unreservedly to the House.
	To ensure that no such thing should happen again, I have relinquished my shares in the company and resigned as a consultant to it. As the commissioner's report suggests, I never became involved in the company to make money; rather I agreed to help a friend with a small business start-up.
	It is a fact that I gave specific instructions to that company stating that nothing should be said or done by it that affected Parliament and furthermore that I was not permitted to use my membership of this House for personal gain. It is also a fact that my consultancy with the company was strictly limited in scope and did not include any element of company management or the vetting of promotional or other material including that on a company website in the United States.
	However, while I had no contractual responsibility in those areas, and was assured that my instructions were being followed, I should have recognised that as a Member of this House I needed to do more. I should have checked what was being done by the company in the United States. I did not do that, and that is why this complaint has occurred.
	In addition, I misclassified my constituency assistant. The misclassification did not attract additional allowances and had no effect on the public purse. There were late registrations in the Register of Members' Interests, and I accept that it is my responsibility to ensure that the register is accurate and kept up to date. However, I never sought to hide my involvement in the company. For both these errors, however, I apologise to the House
	I am pleased and relieved that after a five-month investigation the Standards and Privileges Committee has confirmed that
	there appears to be no basis for the newspaper assertions that The English Manner Ltd. charged substantial
	and, may I add, nor any other
	sums for arranging access to the House
	and that
	there is no evidence that Mr Sayeed received any direct benefit from any of the occasions on which he entertained in the House guests who had links with The English Manner .
	That refutes the main part of the complaint that has been made against me.
	I can assure the House that I have never used my access to the House or its facilities for direct or indirect commercial benefit and I have never solicited or received any payment for any tour or entertainment within the Palace of Westminster. I can also assure the House that the Palace of Westminster did not comprise any part of a programme offered to a guest or form any part of their expectation of their visit to the United Kingdom, nor did it constitute any part of a programme for which they paid.
	Some colleagues may not be aware that the findings of the Standards and Privileges Committee are not seen by the subject of the complaint until one hour before their publication. Consequently, there is no opportunity to correct errors of fact. The report contains a few errors of fact. Paragraph 12 is materially inaccurate, the concluding line of paragraph 13 is wrong, and in paragraph 14 it is clear that there has been a misunderstanding between the Committee and myself.
	Specifically, paragraph 11 states that the programme was circulated in advance to the group leader. That is wrong. The programme was not circulated in advance to anyone. As judgments appear to have been made as to whether I was an indirect beneficiary appear based upon these paragraphs, it is possible that the conclusions the Committee reached would have been different had I been able to correct those mistakes. The inability to correct errors of fact is a matter that the House might care to consider in the future. Whether or not that happens, I acknowledge that though I have acted in good faith throughout, a Committee of the House has found that I should have acted with greater care and that I may have risked damaging the reputation of the House. For that I apologise.
	Had The Sunday Times, which ran the story nearly six months ago, been interested in the truth rather than its preconceived agenda it would have reflected accurately what it was told and would have disclosed that material it said was on the company website had been removed because it was contrary to my instructions. If it had acted responsibly, it would have found that no one who visited the Commons ever came because of the website, it would have recognised that none of the guests of The English Manner were under the impression or perception that they were paying for, and receiving, privileged access to Parliament, and it would have ensured that it contacted those who knew the facts before publishing a tissue of lies.
	Whatever the deficiencies of The Sunday Times, I recognise that as a Member of Parliament I should have thought to do more to check what was happening in the United States than my contractual duties demanded. Although the specifics of the complaint have been shown to be false, had I been more vigilant the complaint might never have occurred.
	I was first elected to this place in 1983. I have never even contemplated the possibility that anything that I did or did not do would call into question either my loyalty to the House or my use of it. That my lack of care has caused questions to be asked and judgments to be made about my conduct I find deeply humiliating, and for which I tender my profound and unreserved apology to the House.

George Young: The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) acknowledged at the beginning of his remarks to some extent that the conduct that gave rise to the complaint fell below the standards of the House, and I welcome that. He has sensibly drawn back from last Thursday's complete public rejection of our report and, again, I am grateful for that. The Select Committee on Standards and Privileges will need to reflect on whether he has responded fully to our recommendations that he apologise fully to the House, in the light of some of his qualifications.
	I commend to the House the motion to approve my Committee's third report, which it agreed unanimously on 1 February, and its recommendation that the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire be suspended from the House for a period of two weeks. In supporting the motion, let me briefly remind the House of the background to our current regulatory regime. A decade or so ago, a series of incidents in which Members sought to exploit their position in the House for commercial advantage ended the careers of a number of colleagues and injured the reputation of others. More importantly, those incidents seriously damaged the standing of Members generally and of the House as an institution in the eyes of the public. Public confidence had to be rebuilt, and following recommendations by the Committee on Standards in Public Lifethen known as the Nolan committeethe House adopted much more rigorous procedures involving, first, a code of conduct and, secondly, an independent commissioner to investigate complaints. At the heart of the new arrangements was a recognition of the overriding need to maintain a proper and visible distinction between our public duties as Members and our private interests. That need is underpinned by the Register of Members' Interests, the main purpose of which is defined in the guide to the rules as giving
	public notification on a continuous basis of those pecuniary interests held by Members which might be thought to influence their parliamentary conduct or actions.
	I stress the words might be thought, as the House accepts that there are occasions on which perceptions are a relevant factor.
	As the code makes clear, Members must base their conduct on a consideration of the public interest, and avoid conflict between personal and public interests. They must also conduct themselves at all times in a manner that will tend to maintain and strengthen public trust and confidence in the integrity of Parliament as an institution, and never undertake any activity that would bring the House or Members generally into disrepute. Those two basic principles each have a bearing on the matter now before the House.
	Before turning to the specifics of that matter, it might be helpful if I outlined the key elements of how the system works in practice. All complaints are made to the independent commissioner and it is for him alone to decide which merit further investigation and how they are investigated. The ultimate purpose of any investigationhe is an investigator, not a prosecutoris to seek to establish whether or not the Member has breached the code of conduct. He seeks to agree with the Member concerned, wherever possibleand almost always doesthe facts that have emerged from the investigation. He forms an opinion as to whether they reveal any breach of the code and he reports to the Committee, which always publishes his report in full, along with its own report to the House.
	It is my Committee that reaches a decision on whether there has been a breach of the code and, in appropriate cases, recommends further action to the House. It reaches its decision on the basis of a thorough and critical examination of the facts reported by the commissioner and any further evidence that it has sought or that the Member has offered following confidential sight of the commissioner's full report. The Committee never simply rubber-stamps the commissioner's conclusions and recommendations.
	I turn now to the specific case before us today. I have to say to the House that I was surprised that the hon. Member issued an embargoed press statement within an hour of seeing the Committee's report, denouncing the Committee's recommendations that he be suspended for two weeks as
	wrong, unjust and contrary to the evidence accepted by the Commissioner and recognised by the Committee.
	The hon. Member is entitled to his opinion and he has at least been consistent in that matter, both in his written evidence and at the conclusion of his oral evidence when he made it clear that, in his view, it would be a gross travesty if the Committee upheld the complaint.
	The Committee, of course, gave full weight to the hon. Member's points, as it did to all the other evidence before it. It none the less unanimously agreed with the commissioner that the evidence bore out the substance of his conclusions. I hope that the House will understand that, in seeking to rebut some of the points that the hon. Member advanced, I may need to speak at greater length on this occasion than on previous ones where our verdict was not challenged.
	The hon. Member for Harwich (Mr. Henderson) sought in his complaint an investigation of whether the hon. Member had abused parliamentary privilege in respect of his association with The English Manner Ltd.a company in which he has a 30 per cent. shareholding. The hon. Member for Harwich also asked for an examination of whether it was ethical for the hon. Member to employ Mrs. Alexandra Messervy as his constituency assistant when she was also the majority shareholder of The English Manner Ltd.a dual role that, in the view of the hon. Member for Harwich, may have resulted in an unacceptable conflict of interest.
	In support of his complaint, the hon. Member for Harwich sent the commissioner material gathered by The Sunday Times on the basis of which the newspaper had published articles in August 2004, asserting that The English Manner Ltd. charged substantial sums for tours of Parliament guided by the hon. Member in question.
	The complaint was thoroughly investigated by the commissioner, whose report is published together with the Committee's. On behalf of the House, I should like to thank the commissioner for the care with which he investigated the complaint and formulated his conclusions. Besides the commissioner's report, the Committee received further written submissions from the hon. Member and from Mrs. Messervy, who is also one of two directors of The English Manner Ltd. It also took oral evidence from the hon. Member, at his own request.
	Having given careful consideration to all the evidence before it, the Committee unanimously accepted the conclusions of the commissioner regarding the conduct of the hon. Member. For his part, and despite the protestations in his press release, the hon. Member himself accepted in giving evidence to the Committee that he did not exercise sufficient personal control over a company in which he had a financial interest.
	The basic facts are not in dispute. The hon. Member is a substantial shareholder in The English Manner Ltd.an interest that he properly registered from the outset. He is also a remunerated consultant to the company on marketing strategy. It is clear that he recognised the potential for conflicts of interest between those roles and his duties as a Member, both because of his oral instruction that neither his name, nor the name of Parliament was to be used in promotional material and because of his ticking of the relevant box when booking dining rooms in the House when his guests had The English Manner Ltd. connections.
	It is also common ground between the Committee and the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire that there was no evidence that he benefited directly from entertaining clients of The English Manner Ltd. in the House, nor any evidence that the company made a profit from that entertaining. The Committee states that explicitly at paragraph 40 of the report, and also that there appears to be no basis for newspaper assertions that The English Manner charged substantial sums for arranging access to the House.
	Where, then, lies the root of the difference of view between the commissioner and the Committee, on the one hand, and the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire on the other? In essence, the hon. Member takes the view that, as there is no evidence supporting the key assertions by The Sunday Times regarding charging for access to Parliament, that complaint must fall. Likewise, he maintains that as there was never, in his opinion, a conflict of interest between the role of Mrs. Messervy as his constituency assistant on the one hand, and her directorship and majority shareholding in The English Manner on the other, that complaint must also fall.
	On those grounds, the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire considers that the Committee should have explicitly rejected the entire complaint, and that therefore the imposition of a penalty is unjust and wrong, and that the opinions of both the commissioner and the Committee fly in the face of the evidence.
	I remind the House that the complaint, whose terms I outlined earlier, are set out in full on pages 40 and 41 of the Committee's report, and that they went far wider than the very narrow and specific points on which the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire seeks to argue. The commissioner and the Committee considered that a broader viewof how The English Manner promoted itself, and of the relationships between those running the companyneeded to be taken than the one apparently taken by the hon. Member. Given that the company sought, in large measure, to market itself by word of mouth and personal recommendation, that broader view should also apply to the likely reaction of those clients who were entertained at the House.
	The commissioner consistently presented the complaint to the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire in those broader terms, as did the Committee when it took evidence from him. In a nutshell, it is that different view of the scope of the complaint that lies at the heart of the different conclusions reached by the hon. Member on the one hand, and by the Committee and the commissioner on the other.
	The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire believes that the key question is, Was either I or The English Manner paid for taking people round the House? Both the Committee and the commissioner see the matter differently. They ask, Did the hon. Member break the code by allowing his privileged access to the House and its facilities to be exploited for the commercial benefit of a company in which he had a clear financial interest?
	Much of the evidence, and many of the press allegations, centred on material placed on the company's website. The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire does not dispute that some material on the website gave the impression that The English Manner could arrange privileged access to Parliament. However, he then contends that much of the material behind the complaint was posted on the website without proper authorisation, and that its removal by the company was recognition that it should not have been used in that way. That, of course, avoids the question about the purpose for which the company had prepared the materialsomething on which the hon. Member was silent.
	Such evidence as there is suggests that the documents concerned did form part of the company's marketing strategy. More seriously, however, the review of a visit that included the Palace of Westminster, to which the Committee referred in paragraph 19 of its report, and which explicitly connected the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire, Parliament and the expression fabulous English Manner adventure, was clearly written for promotional purposes by no less a person than the director of the company and a fellow shareholder. The hon. Member is also silent about how that happened. The evidence clearly suggested that the companyor, at least, its marketing endconsidered privileged access to Parliament to be a marketing point, whatever the protestations to the contrary.
	The first defence by the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire is that he had made it clear that neither his name, nor that of Parliament, should be used in the company's marketing. He argues that, having instructed that his name should not be used, why should he have had to check?
	Is that view sustainable? The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire is an experienced business man. As a Member of the House, he knew of the sensitivities and risks involved in being seen to market Parliament for commercial advantage, and he was remunerated as a marketing consultant to the company.
	Both the commissioner and the Committee agreed that the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire should have done more to avoid such conflict, and that he should have taken a far closer interest in the company's marketing strategy in that respect, including its use of the website as a promotional tool.
	The hon. Member's second defence was that, on all occasions except one, the guests he entertained in the House who were in the country as clients of The English Manner were entertained as personal friends and not company clients. We explored that in evidence with him, and he agreed that in fact on each occasion only at least one of the guests was a good friend. In essence, the hon. Member was entertaining groups on the basis of know one, know all. While he may have known personally the organiser of the Garden Club visit, there is no evidence that he had any personal connection whatever with the club as an institution. He also accepted that there was no discussion with guests that might help them to appreciate what he saw as the distinctive status of their visits to the House. Several of them also got a bill for the meal from the companyan act unlikely to reinforce any perception that they had been personally entertained by the hon. Memberalthough we recognise that there is no evidence that the company added a mark-up.
	The most blatant example of commercial exploitation was the familiarisation visit, which, as a whole, was self-evidently designed to promote the company. Neither the commissioner nor the Committee found sustainable the hon. Member's arguments that that entertainment in the House was purely a personal matter. Both concluded that, taken as a whole, the effect of those visits was to give credibility to the company's overall marketing claim that it could gain access for its clients to institutions, people and places that would otherwise be difficult. The hon. Member, as a major shareholder, would therefore stand to benefit indirectly from that promotion of the company.
	Nor does the hon. Member's assertion, repeated in his press statement, that a visit to the House did not form any part of a programme offered to the guests, hold water. The Committee saw the programme for the Garden Club visit. It clearly included a visit to the House, and must have been made available beforehand to some, at least, of the party, as it included an option that had to be booked six weeks before the date of the visit. The hon. Member, in his evidence, could give no satisfactory explanation of that. In short, both the commissioner and the Committee rejected both defences, and concluded that he had failed adequately to prevent The English Manner from exploiting commercially his privileged access to the House.
	Two other matters came to light during the commissioner's investigation. The first, which emerged very late in the investigation, was that the hon. Member had made six, not four, registrable visits to the USA paid for by The English Manner. The hon. Member had previously twice assured the commissioner that there had been only four such visits. It is regrettable that he misled the commissioner in that way.
	The hon. Member accepted responsibility for the late registrations, and explained that they had arisen as a result of a staff member's oversight. The Committee noted, though, that the two previous visits, recorded in the current published edition of the register, had also not been registered within the one-month period, again by substantial margins.
	The hon. Member had also on four occasions given incorrect information to the Department of Finance and Administration about Mrs. Messervy's employment status. The information was apparently given in good faith at the time, but should have been corrected when anticipated developments did not materialise. Those failures could have led to an overpayment of the staffing allowance, but in the event appear not to have done so. Although, in that sense, no harm was done, those lapses suggest a less than thorough approach to those important matters.
	In both respects, the Committee considered that the hon. Member could and should have done more. He has apologised for his oversights in respect of the staffing allowance and accepts that ultimately he is to blame for the failure to register, in a timely fashion, the two past recent visits.
	The Committee has given very careful consideration to the Commissioner's report, and to the further evidence provided by the hon. Member and by Mrs. Messervy. It has discussed the case on three occasions, and deliberated on it for several hours. I stress that the Committee was unanimous in its conclusions. I believe that the hon. Member takes too narrow and selective a view of the nature of the complaint and appears unable to recognise the breadth of the issues raised by his conduct. I take the view that the Committee's recommendation, in the formulation of which it took into account recommendations made in previous cases, is a proportionate response to the facts revealed in the evidence. I see nothing in the hon. Member's press release that leads me to think that either the commissioner or the Committee came to the wrong decision.
	Looking at decisions in past cases involving failure to observe strictly the registration requirements, it is likely that the non-registration of the visits and the incorrect information given to the Department of Finance and Administration, both of which the hon. Member accepts, would themselves have led the Committee to call for an apology. When we add in the other matters, which risked damaging the reputation of the House by giving the impression that its facilities were for hire, I think that a recommendation for suspension was inevitable given the extent to which the hon. Member's conduct, as revealed by the commissioner's investigation, had fallen below the standard the House expects.
	I commend the report to the House and the recommendation it makes that the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire be suspended from the House for a period of two weeks.

Oliver Heald: These are always unhappy occasions, but it is important that the House can operate proper and effective self-regulation. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) for his chairmanship of the Committee. I also thank the commissioner and the other members of the Committee who work so hard on these difficult cases on behalf of all of us.
	It is clear from the report and exhibits that the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) has conceded that he did not exercise sufficient control over the company he part-owned and that those using the company website had scope to believe that the company was in the business of providing access to the House of Commons. There was an appearance of conflict of interest in his staff employment arrangements. He has had to apologise for giving the Fees Office and the commissioner wrong information.
	The Committee found that the hon. Member stood to gain financially from the benefits to the company of his involvement in visits to and entertainment at the House. As my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire said, the Committee concluded that the hon. Member's conduct was well below the standards expected. Hon. Members will know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition has described that behaviour as wholly unacceptable. I support the Committee's recommendation and the motion before the House.

Peter Hain: It is generally accepted that the House should move quickly to resolve recommendations from the Committee on Standards and Privileges. The Committee published its report last Thursday 3 February, and the Government have provided time for debate at the earliest opportunity.
	I thank the Committee for its examination of this matter, and the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards for his investigation. I believe that both have operated with commendable thoroughness and scrupulous fairness to the hon. Member concerned. I pay tribute in particular to the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), who has demonstrated yet again why he is so appropriate a Chairman of the Committee.
	The House will welcome the apology by the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) in what was a speech of some dignity, but as the right hon. Gentleman said, it is regrettable that the hon. Member's press release was so stridently different in content and tone. It is not clear whether he has actually accepted the Committee's recommendations.
	In paragraph 15, the Committee found clearly that the hon. Member stood to gain, even if indirectly, from the benefits that accrued to the company from clients visiting the House. It found a clear risk to the reputation of the House, and the House has heard from the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire a clear explanation of its reasoning, which we welcome.
	I urge hon. Members on both sides of the House to endorse the Committee's report and accept its recommendation. Matters of this kind reflect on the integrity of the House and on each of us who are Members of it. They affect the way in which the public look at Parliament, encouraging cynicism about politics and politicians. They undermine all the good work that is being done to increase public engagement. It is important that we should be seen to respond to matters of this kind fairly but robustly.
	I commend the motion to the House.

Paul Tyler: I, too, want to refer briefly to the Committee's report. I hope that the whole House will take this opportunity to express confidence in the commissioner, the Committee and the process for which they are responsible on our behalf. The integrity of our process is extremely important to the reputation of the whole House.
	I hope that the Chairman of the Committee, the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), may be able to confirm that the commissioner, as is normal practice, gave the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) opportunities to correct any factual inaccuracy. A rather misleading impression was given by the hon. Member in his contribution earlier. I hope that it can be corrected.
	In response to the comments of the Leader of the House, perhaps the Chairman of the Committee might like to comment on the subsequent press release, which followed publication of the Committee's report. Did the Committee take that into account in considering this case and will it do so in any future cases? Clearly, a press release issued immediately after publication of a Committee's report can itself damage the reputation of the process and of the House as a whole.
	The House should declare its confidence in our carefully designed disciplinary process and we should express our full support for those who undertake these difficult and sometimes invidious tasks on our behalf.

Tom Levitt: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance on a matter, but I am not sure whether what I have to say is a brief contribution or a point of order. I speak as a former member of the Standards and Privileges Committee, although I was not involved in this case in any way. Normally, the procedure adopted on such occasions is that the Member against whom a finding has been made will agree his statement with Mr. Speaker before presenting it to the House, as the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) has done

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. A personal statement was not made today; we are simply dealing with the report of the Committee.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House
	(i) approves the Third Report of the Committee on Standards and Privileges (House of Commons Paper No. 233); and
	(ii) accordingly suspends Mr Jonathan Sayeed, Member for Mid Bedfordshire, from the service of the House for two weeks.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No.118 (6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism

That the draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Continuance of Part VII) Order 2005, which was laid before this House on 20th January, be approved.[Gillian Merron.]
	Question agreed to.

DRAFT CHILDREN (CONTACT) AND ADOPTION BILL (JOINT COMMITTEE)

Ordered,
	That the Lords Message of 2nd February relating to a Joint Committee of both Houses to consider and report on any draft Children (Contact) and Adoption Bill presented to both Houses by a Minister of the Crown, be now considered.
	Resolved,
	That this House concurs with the Lords that it is expedient that a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons be appointed to consider and report on any draft Children (Contact) and Adoption Bill presented to both Houses by a Minister of the Crown, and that the Committee should report on the draft Bill by 26th May 2005.
	Ordered,
	That a Select Committee of six honourable Members be appointed to join with the Committee appointed by the Lords to consider the draft Children (Contact) and Adoption Bill.
	That the Committee shall have power
	(i) to send for persons, papers and records;
	(ii) to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House;
	(iii) to report from time to time;
	(iv) to appoint specialist advisers;
	(v) to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom.
	That the quorum of the Committee shall be two; and
	That Vera Baird, Virginia Bottomley, Mr David Chidgey, Ann Coffey, Jonathan Shaw and Mr Clive Soley be members of the Committee.[Gillian Merron.]

NBSP;NBSP;NBSP;NBSP;NBSP;NBSP;TREE PROTECTION

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.[Gillian Merron.]

David Kidney: It is a delight I hope that the Minister agreesto debate British trees. After all, they have been providing us humans with food, fuel, shelter, building materials, places of recreation and beauty in our landscape for millennia. Indeed, our quality of life is enhanced by the existence of trees, which absorb greenhouse gases that otherwise cause harm to us and our environment. Trees give us shade. They block out noise. They conserve biodiversity, as habitats for numerous animal and plant species. They aid the economytimber and tourism, with visits to see trees, most immediately come to mindand in my view, they make us happier.
	Hon. Members can see a glorious row of trees close to the House in New Palace Yard. They can see an ancient hawthorn and a rare black poplar in Green park, and they can see the famous Elfin oak in a gilded cage in Kensington gardens. My constituency contains examples of the brilliance of treesI am sure that those of many hon. Members are the sameand many contexts in which trees are valuable to our history. The Royal Oak public house is in Bishop's Wood in my constituency. Many pubs in the country have that name, but the one in my constituency is within a mile or two of the very oak where it is alleged that Charles II hid after his disastrous defeat at Worcester.
	Trees are valuable to our heritage. My constituency contains parts of the wonderful Cannock Chase, which was once a great royal hunting forest but is today owned by the county council. It is a mass of sites of special scientific interest, an area of outstanding natural beauty and a special area of conservation for its heathland. Trees are valuable to our habitats. What a delight it was for me the day that I stood in Shugborough estate, viewing a lime tree that was home to enormous numbers of wasps. I assure the Minister that I watched from a safe distance. Trees are also valuable to housingsomething that applies across the country. I refer in particular to urban areas: trees add to the delight of parks, grass verges alongside roads and housing estates.
	I want to discuss the polices that we should implement to value and protect all kinds of trees, and the contribution that my hon. Friend the Minister can make in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Let me start with the brilliant reforms that we have had to the common agricultural policy since June 2003. It is great to see that woodland and trees are recognised for the part that they play in farmed landscapes. We have a glorious toolkit: the cross-compliance conditions, the entry level and the high-level schemes for the forest stewardship and woodland grant schemes. For goodness' sake, let us ensure that we use all those schemes to improve the country's treesfor example, by buffering important woodland sites from surrounding intensive land use.
	The Department has other tools, such as its biodiversity strategy, which covers the conditions that are set to maintain the condition of SSSIs and the number of agri-environmental schemes to manage land. Another of the Department's tools is the plant diversity challenge, otherwise known as the UK's response to the global strategy for plant conservation. The target for the sustainable management of plant products is relevant to that.
	Training, skills and information services are a crucial tool for the Department. I believe that it is possible to fire the public's imagination and inspire people to work, including as volunteers, with trees. From my constituency experiences, I know that there would be a positive public response. When residents living near the ancient Fullmoor wood thought that it was under threat from works proposed by the Forestry Commission, they organised a huge campaign, which included public demonstrations and contact with their Member of Parliament. I praise publicly the response of the Forestry Commission because, through its openness and transparency, it resolved problems and soothed anxieties. It now has a positive partnership with the residents.
	I shall cite a further positive example from my constituency. In the run-up to the millennium, all the residents of the village of Derrington got together to plant a millennium wood, which now stands as a fine tribute for centuries to come. It was a delight for me to join the residents one day in planting those trees, which they now tend to attentively.
	The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister can make a contribution to all trees. I know that that is not my hon. Friend the Minister's Department, but I am sure that he can assist me. The current system of tree preservation orders is inadequate. There are explicit exceptions to their power. Trees that are dead, dying or dangerous are not protected. The removal of a tree can be authorised by an Act of ParliamentI suppose that the measures on high hedges in the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 would provide for that. An existing tree preservation order can be overridden by granting new planning permission for development. On top of all that, there is the obvious exception that a council may give permission to lop a protected tree, or even to cut it down.
	In addition to those exceptions, there are obvious weaknesses and loopholes in the system. For example, only a fine can be imposed for breaking a tree preservation order and destroying a valuable tree. During my time as a councillor in Stafford, I knew of a developer who deliberately cut down protected trees and stood the fine because the profit on the houses that he subsequently built was miles greater than the fines.

Tony Cunningham: Last Friday, my office received a phone call from a distraught villager of Clifton, which is just outside Workington, who asked me to make a visit. A large site was completely devastated because a developer had chopped just about every tree in it down. He had not received planning permission from the council and, indeed, the inspector had said that he should not get planning permission because the landscape and the trees, and especially the red squirrels that inhabited the trees, were too important. The developer destroyed all the trees either out of spite, or because he planned to put in a further planning application at a future date. The planning authority says that it is finding it difficult to prosecute the developer because he owned the trees and the land. Surely that example supports my hon. Friend's point.

David Kidney: My hon. Friend is right, and I trust that he works hard to do his best to overcome such problems.
	That takes me on to the second aspect of the weaknesses and loopholes in the system. Local authorities do not always enforce existing tree preservation orders. There can be a conundrum about whether accidental damage was caused during development, but local authorities often face other problems. I know from my casework of an allegation that a developer deliberately knocked down trees that were subject to tree preservation orders so that he could make way for houses.
	There is a reverse side of the coin when considering tree preservation orders. Let us be fair to the owners of trees that are subject to such orders. I know from my casework about article 5 certificates, which allow local authorities to refuse permission to carry out work on trees, even for safety reasons. An article 5 certificate can be issued on a tree that is subject to an order made before 1999. The certificate absolves them from any responsibility for anything that goes wrong afterwards. That is clearly unfair. I note from my correspondence with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister that the Government have a long-standing policy of ending that unfairness. I therefore ask the Minister: when will we end that injustice? While we wait to end it, can we not give local authorities guidance requiring them not to rely on article 5 certificates?
	I also ask the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to help local authorities rebuild their expertise in dealing with trees. Several local authorities have lost their ability to employ tree officers, because of previous financial restrictions, and although elected representatives are very willing to do more to help on the subject, they often lack the experience and expertise in officer support to do so.
	I want to say something about ancient trees and ancient woodland in particular. It is estimated that the total area of ancient woodland in England is 334,000 hectares. Woodlands have some protection; felling licences are a good example, and there are designations such as SSSIs and special areas of conservation. I like to think that the UK has a special responsibility to look after ancient trees, based on the fact that about 80 per cent. of north Europe's ancient trees are in Britain.
	Obviously, tree preservation orders do not protect ancient trees. I say obviously, because one of the exceptions to the order is if the tree is dead, dying or dangerous. Of course lots of ancient trees are dead or dying. There is an anonymous saying that an oak tree grows for 300 years, rests for 300 years and spends 300 years gracefully declining. The very fact that they are elderly and declining requires us to protect them.
	I alert the Minister to the sometimes outrageous outcome of calling an old tree dangerous. I should like to give an example with a happy ending. The Redmire oak of North Yorkshire is said to be more than 500 years old. The Methodist preacher John Wesley was said to have preached under it in the 18th century. Despite the support of the parish council, there were increasing health and safety concerns about the tree. Although it is protected by a tree preservation order, the district council thought that it was helpless to save it because it was nearly dead. Yet, with a grant of just 200 from Yorkshire Water, the tree was protected and able to stand and continue to live. It is outrageous that an ancient tree could be lost for want of 200-worth of investment just because we do not have a robust system of protection. I suggest that the tree preservation order, which presently effectively excludes such trees, ought to be changed so that it explicitly protects themperhaps with the new designation of an historic tree.
	Although I was quick to praise the common agricultural policy reforms, I fear that in the case of ancient trees the CAP slightly misses the target. There is a welcome recognition of the value of ancient trees in the good agricultural environmental conditionGAECbut, as I understand it, that covers felling licences, which relate to woodlands, and tree preservation orders. As I have just explained, tree preservation orders are not helpful to ancient trees. Will the Minister consider whether more needs to be done to ensure that ancient trees are covered by the CAP policy reforms that we have achieved? I accept that it is incredibly important to encourage the planting today of trees that will become the ancient trees of future generations. That is an important area of attention for the money from CAP reforms.
	On the issue of planning law and protection for ancient trees, I refer briefly to what is to become planning policy statement 9. We currently have planning policy guidance note 9 on nature conservation, but that is soon to be PPS9 and entitled Biodiversity and geological conservation.
	Paragraph 10 represents a great step forward for ancient trees. It states:
	Aged or veteran trees found outside ancient woodland are also particularly valuable for biodiversity. Planning authorities should encourage the conservation of such trees as part of development proposals.
	That is excellent. Paragraph 10 continues:
	Ancient woodland is a valuable biodiversity resource both for the diversity of species and for its longevity as woodland. Once lost it cannot be recreated. Local planning authorities should identify any areas of ancient woodland in their areas that do not have statutory protection (e.g. as an SSSI).
	All of that marks a welcome shift in policy, but it ends with a caveat:
	unless the need for, and benefits of, the development in that location outweigh the loss of the woodland habitat.
	Does the Minister accept that there is no need for that caveat? After all, the planning system requires planners to take all material considerations into account when dealing with an application. The point of the paragraph is to protect ancient woods and trees. I hope that my hon. Friend agrees that the caveat should be lost from the final text of PPS9.
	At last week's meeting of the all-party group on conservation and wildlife, which I have the privilege to chair, we received a joint presentation from the Woodland Trust and the Ancient Tree Forum, in which there was strong interest among Members of both Houses. They showed us two new website projects. The first, at www.ancient-tree-hunt.org.uk, involves mapping all the ancient trees in the country. The second, at www.woodsunderthreat.info, is excellent: not only does it show any interested member of the public where there are trees and woods under threat from harmful development, but local residents concerned about their ancient trees can mail in information about trees under threat, which can be added to the project. I ask my hon. Friend whether there is any chance of DEFRA joining friends such as the Forestry Commission in funding the projects, which I believe contribute toward meeting the biodiversity strategy indicators and the plant diversity challenge targets by which his Department abides.
	At last week's meeting, I was delighted to be able to introduce as one of our speakers the world-famous author Bill Brysonthe Minister will know of his great commitment to Britain and Britain's heritage. He described ancient trees and woods as important markers of our cultural heritage and spoke of the scandalous loss of ancient trees and woodland. He also made a comparison with historic buildings, saying that while there is protection for historic buildings, there is certainly no protection for historic trees. I urge the Minister to take action to protect our trees for today's and future generations in the same way as we protect our historic buildings. I believe that that would be an extremely popular cause and that a Minister and a Government who took such positive action would be widely acclaimed.

Ben Bradshaw: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) on securing a debate on an extremely important subject and on delivering with such passion a speech full of information. It was well worth waiting through the little bit of business of the House to respond to it.
	I share my hon. Friend's passion for trees. I spent some of the happiest times of my childhood up trees, and I remain something of a tree hugger. I continue to admire trees, and I strongly endorse everything he said about the contribution that they make to our landscape, our biodiversity and our psychological health, and simply as objects of enormous beauty. This evening, we are thinking particularly of ancient and veteran trees, which provide an extremely important genetic link to the wild wood that covered much of our countryside centuries ago. He acknowledged how fortunate we in this country are by citing a statistic that I was unable to lay my hands onthat 80 per cent. of Europe's ancient woodland is in the UK. That has come about partly for cultural reasons and partly because, by and large, we have done a good job of protecting our wonderful trees.
	We have also done quite a lot to encourage new woodland creation through the Forestry Commission's woodland grant scheme and projects such as the national forest and the community forest. Contrary to popular perception, the area of woodland in this country is growing fairly significantly every year. Nevertheless, we must recognise that whenever trees and woodlands are perceived to be under threat, the adequacy of their protection comes into question.
	We have in place a wide range of measures to protect our trees. As my hon. Friend mentioned, they include tree preservation orders, which give local authorities wide powers to protect trees and woodlands in the interests of amenity. Work on those trees then requires the consent of the planning authority. I agree with him that the exemptions that he highlighted in the current system, which allow work on dead, dying or dangerous trees, should be tightened up, and not only in relation to veteran trees. I understand that, as he was kind enough to point out, a lot of the responsibility in this area lies with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, with which we work closely. It has responsibility for tree preservation orders.

Rob Marris: Cross-cutting.

Ben Bradshaw: Exactly: it is a good example not of cutting trees but of cross-cutting government. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is planning to address the issue as soon as parliamentary time permits. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will certainly continue to press it to do so.
	The removal of the exemption allowing work on dying trees would in particular boost the protection of veteran trees, which, as my hon. Friend also pointed out, often contain a significant proportion of dead wood, as they take a long time to die. He also mentioned the felling regulations, which require permission to be sought from the Forestry Commission when a landowner wishes to fell an area of woodland. These applications are carefully considered before a licence is granted. Restocking conditions can be attached to such licences, and in many cases, the new woodland that is established is an improvement in quality on that which it replaces.
	As the House will be aware, many of our finest concentrations of veteran trees and ancient woodlands have extra statutory protection through designation as sites of special scientific interest. I am thinking, for example, of the New Forest, Sherwood forest and the trees of Windsor great park. More than a quarter of England's 4,000-plus SSSIs, making up more than 115,000 hectares, have significant woodland conservation interest. Almost three quarters of woodland SSSIs are in favourable condition, which is ahead of the average for all SSSIs. Some of the woodland SSSIs are also special areas of conservation under the habitats directive, which recognises their importance at European level.
	Protection and enhancement of veteran trees and ancient woodland is, however, about much more than regulation and statutory designation. It is also about raising awarenesssomething that is partly helped by debates such as thisof the value of our trees and woodlands among all who can influence their management. That is why projects such as the one to which my hon. Friend referred, the Ancient Tree Forum's ancient tree hunt, is partly funded by the Forestry Commission, which is a member of the DEFRA family, as well as the work of the Woodland Trust to draw attention to the special value of veteran trees and ancient woodland, are to be applauded.
	For our part, in 2002 we published the England biodiversity strategy, Working with the grain of nature, which set out a programme of activity to ensure the integration of biodiversity into policy making and practice. One of the key aims in the strategy is to conserve and enhance the biodiversity of woodlands, and particularly ancient semi-natural woodlands, veteran trees and wood pasture. The woodlands and forestry workstream, which helped to prepare the strategy, is currently undertaking a detailed work plan to tackle important issues such as the protection of woodland from external threats, which my hon. Friend mentioned, conserving and enhancing the biodiversity of native woodland, and the conservation of woodland biodiversity in the wider landscape.
	I turn now to one or two of the issues that my hon. Friend raised that are the specific responsibility of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. The new draft guidance in the planning policy statement for biodiversity, PPS9, which he mentioned, makes a big step forward in recognising the biodiversity value of ancient woodland. The draft PPS now requires local authorities to identify ancient woodland of highest biodiversity value that is not already protected by statutory designation. We believe that that identification process will assist local authorities in ensuring that the biodiversity value of such sites is fully considered in decisions on planning proposals. It will also ensure that development affecting ancient woodland is not allowed to go ahead unless any loss or deterioration is clearly outweighed by the need for and benefits of the proposed development.
	I give my hon. Friend the assurance that we will not make any decision on the final wording of PPS9 until all responses to the consultation, including those from the Woodland Trust and the Ancient Tree Forum, have been fully considered. We expect to publish a final version of PPS9, together with its accompanying circular and a good practice guide, in mid2005.
	For many years, the Forestry Commission has recognised the value of our ancient woodlands, and it is preparing a new statement on ancient woodland policy. The new statement will confirm our commitment to the protection and enhancement of ancient woodlands and will be backed by new management guidelines for ancient and native woodlands that gives practical advice to woodland managers. The new English woodland grants scheme will provide a framework for the provision of incentives to encourage the management of ancient woodland and the creation of new woodland.
	My hon. Friend referred to another way in which we are encouraging the management of individual trees and small groups of trees. DEFRA's new high-level scheme is one of our agri-environment schemes under common agricultural policy reform. It will provide incentives for various works to conserve and manage veteran trees, including pollarding, surgery and protection from encroachment. Although I appreciate my hon. Friend's concerns about designation, because we have such a large proportion of Europe's ancient and veteran treesfar more than any other countryour overall approach is concentrated on some of the very good schemes, rather than the labour and resource-intensive process of cataloguing every single veteran tree in the country. That policy is under constant review and I have heard his representations tonight. For the time being, however, our overall approach to building on our wonderful resource of ancient woodland and veteran trees is best done by building on the existing work, including tree preservation orders, planning policy statements, ancient woodland policy, agri-environmental schemes and woodland grants.

Tony Cunningham: My hon. Friend has mentioned tree preservation orders. I have heard of cases in which councils have received planning applications for 10 houses on a site that contains a tree. When people say, We need a tree preservation order on that tree, the planning officer says, That will cost the local authority 50,000 or 60,000, because the developer will say, 'I can only build nine houses rather than 10.' At that point, councillors say, That is a lot of money, and the tree is not preserved, although it is under a tree preservation order.

Ben Bradshaw: My hon. Friend has made a good pointI was going to respond to his earlier point about a particular constituency case. It is extremely important that local authorities take their responsibilities for preserving ancient and important trees seriously. I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford about the need for local authorities to re-examine how they resource such work, and I undertake to ensure that the ODPM is aware of the concerns expressed today about how local authorities prioritise such work and the action that they take when developers behave unacceptably.

Rob Marris: Will my hon. Friend say a little more about what the Government are doing to encourage local authorities, particularly in England, to plant native species? We must protect ancient woodlands, but we must also protect native species. In recent years, there has been a trend to replace native species with non-native species, and I urge him to encourage local authorities to plant native species.

Ben Bradshaw: We already encourage local authorities to plant native species. I am surprised by my hon. Friend's point, because my impression is that we have got the message across in recent years to both local authorities and private woodland owners that the grant schemes administered by my Department have moved towards the planting of native species rather than of non-native species.
	The debate has been interesting and important. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford accepts that DEFRA and I take the matter extremely seriously. Forestry in this country has a great future, partly because of the historic reforms of the CAP and partly because of the enormous potential for the production of renewable energy through afforestation.
	We all value our ancient and historic trees, but we can always do more, and the package of measures that I have outlined can always be revised and improved to become more effective. As long as I am Minister with responsibility for forestry, I will ensure that we do all that we can to encourage the management of our wonderful trees.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes past Eight o'clock.